LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 


Class 


ARTAXERXES  III  OCHUS  AND 

His  Reign 


WITH  SPECIAL  CONSlDIilKA'i'iU.N  Ut    ihi-.  OLD  TESTAMENT 
SOURCES  BEARINri  UPON  TTTE  PERIOD 


AN  INAUGURAL  DISSERTATION 

UBMITTED  TO  THE  PHILOSOPHICAL  FACULTY  OP  THE   lu>i 
IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DOCTOR'S  DEGREE 


BY 


NOAH  CALVIN  HIRSCHY 

OF  Briuri;.  itv'ki  v-m 


A.  <  BPTED  BY  THE  PHILOSOPHICAL  FACULTY  UPON  THE 
mOPOSAL  OP  PROFESSOR  DR.  K.  MARTI 

P1K5FESS0R  DR.  G.  TOBLER 


I- IP' 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1909 


ArTAXERXES  III  OCHUS  AND 

His  Reign 


WITH  SPECIAL  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
SOURCES  BEARING  UPON  THE  PERIOD 


AN  INAUGURAL  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  PHILOSOPHICAL  FACULTY  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  BERN 
IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DOCTOR'S  DEGREE 


BY 

NOAH  CALVIN  HIRSCHY 

OF  BERNE,   INDIANA 


ACCEPTED  BY  THE  PHILOSOPHICAL  FACULTY  UPON  THE 
PROPOSAL  OF  PROFESSOR  DR.  K.  MARTI 

PROFESSOR  DR.  G.  TOBLER 
BERN  DEAN 

JULY  16.  1907 


CHICAGO 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1909 


Copyright  1909  By 
The  University  of  Chicago 


Published  May  1909 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.  S.  A, 


PREFACE 

In  this  attempt  to  gather  all  the  historic  data  of  a  dark  and  weary 
period  of  the  world's  history  on  which  the  sources  of  information  are 
rather  indefinite  and  unsatisfactory,  it  may  at  first  appear  that  too  much 
attention  is  paid  to  the  general  historic  situation.  But  when  we  remember 
that  some  of  the  biblical  sources  claimed  for  the  reign  of  Ochus  are  placed 
by  scholars  at  different  periods  from  the  eighth  to  the  first  century,  then 
this  objection  loses  its  force.  The  final  solution  of  the  acceptance  or 
rejection  of  the  Old  Testament  sources  for  this  period  seems  to  the  writer 
to  depend  very  largely  on  the  clearness  of  our  conception  of  the  history 
of  the  last  seven  centuries  before  the  Christian  era.  The  reign  of  Ochus 
forms  only  a  fragment  of  the  two  and  a  fourth  centuries  of  Persian  suprem- 
acy. But  to  be  fully  understood  it  must  be  viewed  in  its  connection  with 
the  whole.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  history  of  Persia  and  the  more 
immediate  contemporary  history  are  treated  more  fully  than  would  other- 
wise be  consistent  ^vith  the  subject. 

In  chap,  i  the  aim  is  simply  to  give  a  brief  summary  of  the  accepted 
history  of  the  period,  while  in  chap,  ii  and  in  chap,  iii  both  the  sources  and 

the  literature  have  been  consulted. 

N.  C.  H. 
Bern 
June,  1907. 


19100G 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAOB 

Preface iii 

CHAPTER 

I.    A  Historical  Survey i 

A.  Literature 

B.  From  Achaemenes  to  Cyrus 

C.  Persian  and  Contemporary  History 

II.    The  History  of  Ochus  and  His  Reign 21 

A.  The  Historical  Sources 

B.  Literature 

C.  The  Empire  of  Ochus 

D.  The  Events  of  the  Reign  of  Ochus 

E.  The  Work  and  Character  of  Ochus 

III.  An  Examination  of  the  Old  Testament  Sources  Pos- 
sibly Dating  from  the  Reign  of  Ochus  or  Reflecting 
Light  Thereon 46 

A.  The  Sources 

B.  The  Literature 

C.  Examination  of  the  Sources 

D.  Summary  Result 

Appendix:   Chronological  Tables 83 


-«-■■■.■ 

or   THE 


CHAPTER  I 

A    HISTORICAL    SURVEY.    ACHAEMENES   TO    CYRUS.    PERSIAN 
AND  CONTEMPORARY  HISTORY  550-331  B.  C. 

A.      LITERATURE 

Geo.  Grote  History  of  Greece,  1854''.  Geo.  Rawlinson  History 
of  Herodotus  I-IV,  1875.  F.  Justi  Geschiclite  des  alien  Persiens,  1879. 
F.  Spiegel  Die  alt-persischen  Keilinschriften,  I88I^  A.Wiedemann 
Aegyptische  Geschichte  II,  1884.  Th.  Noldeke  Aufsdtze  zur  per- 
sischen  Geschichte,  1887,  the  best  treatment  of  the  subject;  the  same 
appeared  in  a  less  complete  form  in  Enc.  Brit.  Article  "Persia," 
1875.  E.  Meyer  Die  Entstehung  des  Judentums,  1896.  E.  Meyer 
Geschichte  des  Altertums  I-V,  1884,  1893,  1901,  1901,  1902.  C.  P. 
Tiele,  Article  "Persia"  in  E.  B.  Ill,  1902.  E.  Schradcr  Die  Keilin- 
schriften und  das  Alte  Testament,  1883%  3.  Auflagc  neubearbeitet 
von  H.  Zimmern  und  H.  Winckler,  1903. 

Of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Sources  the  following  contain  valuable 
information:  Herodotus,  ca.  555-ca.  424.  Xenophon,  ca.  430- 
ca.  354.  Ktesias,  between  500  and  400.  Isocrates,  436-338.  Ephoros 
Cumae,  born  ca.  408.  Demosthenes,  385-322.  Strabo,  bom 
ca.  63.  Diodorus  Siculus,  between  49  b.  c.  and  14  a.  d.  Josephus, 
ca.  37  A.  D.-ca.  100.  Plutarch,  ca.  46-ca.  120.  Arrian,  born  ca.  100. 
C.  Julius  SoHnus,  ca.  230.  Eusebius,  ca.  265-340.  Paulus  Orosius, 
toward  the  close  of  the  fourth  centur}'.    Cf.  the  sources  under  chap.  ii. 

B.      FROM  ACHAEMENES   TO   CYRUS 

The  Achaemenides  were  a  royal  family  whose  ancient  home  was 
in  the  city  of  Ansan,  probably  near  the  later  family  seat  Pas- 
argadae  in  Persis,  or  identical  with  it.  The  ancestor  of  the  entire 
family  was  Achaemenes  (Hakhamanis)  who  was  perhaps  not  a 
historical  personage,  but  a  heros  eponymus.  Unhke  the  early  oriental 
nations  the  Persians  were  not  Semites  but  Ar}'ans  who  belonged  to 
the  Indo-European  races,  as  did  all  the  Iranians.     To  the  Aryan 


2  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

race  belonged  also  the  Achaemenides.'  As  early  as  730  b.  c,  Teispis, 
the  first  leader,  flourished  in  Ansan.  Following  him  in  direct  lineage 
were  Cambyses,  Cyrus,  Teispis  II,  Cyrus  II,  and  Cambyses  II, 
before  the  beginning  of  the  Persian  empire. 

The  history  of  Persia  begins  with  the  downfall  of  the  Median 
empire.  This  empire  began  to  rise  when  the  shadows  began  to  fall 
upon  Assyria.  About  the  time  when  Assurbanipal  of  Assyria  sub- 
jugated Babylonia,  the  Median  tribes,  wishing  to  cease  their  quarrels 
and  to  unite  against  a  common  foe,  chose  Deioces  as  their  first 
king.  But  the  real  founder  of  the  empire  was  his  successor,  Phraortes, 
647-625.  Through  him  the  empire  was  enlarged.  Persia  was 
brought  under  his  power,  and  afterward,  Uttle  by  little,  large  portions 
of  Asia.  Phraortes  himself  fell  in  a  campaign  against  Assyria. 
Under  his  son  and  successor,  Cyaxares,  624-585,  the  empire  reached 
its  highest  power.  Nineveh  was  besieged,  but,  by  reason  of  an 
invasion  by  the  Scythians,  Cyaxares  was  called  home.  These 
Scythians,  also  Aryans,  were  conquered  and  afterward  joined  his 
army.  With  the  aid  of  Babylon  the  siege  of  Nineveh  was  renewed, 
the  proud  capital  taken,  606,  and  the  empire,  once  the  arbitrary  ruler 
of  the  world,  wiped  entirely  from  the  earth.  Cyaxares  was  already 
master  of  Armenia  and  Cappadocia  when  he  began  the  war  with 
Lydia.  Five  years  of  fruitless  conflict  with  that  rival  empire  finally 
resulted  in  a  treaty  of  peace  after  the  battle  of  Halys,  May  28,  585, 
a  peace  effected  through  Syennesis  of  Celicia  and  Nebuchadrezzar 
of  Babylonia  as  arbiters. 

Under  Astyages,  the  last  Median  king,  584-550,  probably  a 
survivor  of  the  Scythian  tribes,^  the  empire  gradually  approached  its 
close.  Compared  with  Assyria  before  and  Persia  after,  the  Median 
empire  was  rather  insignificant,  but  it  was  the  first  attempt  of  an 
Aryan  people  to  found  a  great  and  conquering  empire.  Unable  to 
conquer  Lydia  and  obliged  to  recognize  the  mighty  power  of  Nabopo- 
lassar,  it  nevertheless  gave  the  death  blow  to  Assyria.  It  liberated 
Irin  from  Semitic  suzerainty  and  united  the  quarreling  tribes  under 
a  central  power  and  so  laid  the  foundation  and  paved  the  way  for 
the  Persian  empire. 

I  Behistun  Inscription  i.  ii. 

a  According  to  Justi,  Astyages  was  a  son  of  Cyaxares  Gesch.  des  alien  Persiens  13. 


HISTORICAL  SURVEY 


C.      PERSIAN  AND  CONTEMPORARY   HISTORY,    550-331    B.  C 

The  Persians  under  Cyrus  (KQrus),  king  of  Ansan,  revolted  against 
Astyages,  who  is  said  to  have  been  an  extravagant  and  fierce  ruler,  so 
that  his  own  subjects  rejoiced  over  the  rise  of  Cyrus.  One  of  his 
own  officials,  Harpagus,  betrayed  him  into  the  hands  of  Cyrus.  When 
Astyages  and  his  capital  Ecbatana  were  conquered,  Media  and 
Persia  changed  places.  The  Medo-Persian  empire  became  the 
Perso-Median  in  the  year  550  b.  c.  Cyrus  had  already  been  king 
of  Persia  nine  years  before  the  beginning  of  the  empire.  Now  he 
became  "the  great  king"  of  a  new  empire,  550-529.*  His  first  effort 
was  to  subdue  the  lands  which  had  belonged  to  the  Median  empire. 
This  he  accomplished  in  three  years.  The  next  step  was  to  conquer 
the  powerful  and  wealthy  king  Croesus  of  Lydia,  who  ruled  over 
nearly  the  whole  western  half  of  Asia  Minor.  Croesus  sought  the 
help  of  Greece,  Egypt,  and  Babylonia.  The  Delphic  oracle  gave  a 
favorable  reply.  Croesus  decided  to  postpone  the  attack  on  the 
advancing  Persians  until  spring.  This  was  his  mistake,  for  already, 
in  the  winter,  Cyrus  proceeded  into  Lydia  and  speedily  took  Sardis, 
the  capital.  Croesus  was  spared,  but  the  Lydian  empire  had  become 
a  Persian  province,  547-546.  The  Lydians  made  no  attempt  ever 
afterward  to  shake  off  the  Persian  yoke.  The  Greek  cities  of  western 
Asia  Minor  were  soon  brought  into  subjection  through  Harpagus 
and  other  Persian  leaders. 

Babylonia  anticipated  danger  in  case  the  balance  of  power  between 
the  East  and  the  West  should  be  broken.  Consequently  Nebuchad- 
rezzar built  great  fortifications,  a  double  wall  around  the  city  and  the 
Median  wall  from  the  Tigris  to  the  Euphrates,  besides  numerous 
canals.  This  made  Babylon  secure  under  Nebuchadrezzar,  but 
his  successors  were  not  his  equals  in  power.  The  last  of  the  kings, 
Nabunaid,  559-539,  brought  the  ill-will  of  his  subjects  upon  himself 
through  the  neglect  of  the  worship  of  Marduk  and  the  introduction 
of  foreign  gods.  Cyrus  was  still  without  the  true  capital  of  Asia, 
Babylon,  on  which  his  eye  was  fixed.  He  could  not  think  of  breaking 
through  the  fortifications  on  the  north,  so  he  approached  on  the  side 
of  the  Tigris.     The  Babylonian  army,  under  the  command  of  Bel- 

I  Cf.  Noldeke  Aufsdlze  zur  persischen  Geschichte  14-85. 

*  For  the  dates  of  the  Persian  rulers  Noldeke  op.  cit.  is  followed. 


4  ARTAXERXES   III  OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

shazzar  (Bel-sar-usur)  met  Cyrus  but  was  defeated  near  Opis,  and 
again  as  often  as  it  rallied.  The  north  Babylonians  had  revolted 
against  their  king  and  Sippar  opened  its  gates  to  the  enemy.  Babylon 
fell  into  the  hands  of  Cyrus  without  resistance  in  538.  The  new 
king  entered  the  city  to  the  great  joy  of  all  classes,  but  was  especially 
welcomed  by  the  priesthood  and  the  nobles  who  looked  upon  him 
as  a  Hberator.  Belshazzar  was  probably  slain  by  Gobryas'  the 
governor  of  Gutium,  and  Nabunaid  was  taken  captive.  All  the 
territory  subject  to  Babylonia  seems  to  have  submitted  to  the  rule 
of  the  Persians  without  resistance. 

Syria  also,  as  far  as  the  borders  of  Eg}'pt,  and  Phoenicia,  with  all 
her  island  cities,  came  without  opposition  under  the  Persian  dominion. 
The  Semitic  world  had  become  an  Aryan  empire.  A  final  work 
remained  for  Cyrus.  Wliile  Harpagus  was  subduing  the  Greek 
cities  and  free  states  and  coast-lands,  Cyrus  himself  compelled  the 
settled  Aryan  tribes  of  the  East,  and  the  nomadic  tribes  of  the  North- 
east to  recognize  the  new  empire.  The  Persian  dominion  now  ex- 
tended from  the  Indus  to  the  blue  waters  of  the  Aegean.  In  a  battle 
with  a  savage  tribe  of  the  northeast,  probably  the  Massagatae,  Cyrus 
met  his  death  in  529.  His  body  was  probably  rescued  and  brought 
to  Pasargadae,  where  a  tomb  erected  by  his  son  Cambyses  marks  his 
burial-place.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  this  is  not  his  actual 
burial-place,  but  merely  a  mausoleum  erected  in  his  honor,  in  the 
great  king's  favorite  capital. 

The  captive  Jews  in  Babylonia  had  placed  great  hopes  in  Cyrus 
for  their  future  liberation.  Through  him  their  God  Jahwe  would  set 
them  free,  punish  their  oppressors,  and  restore  Jerusalem.  This 
was  the  message  of  their  prophet  Deutero-Isaiah.*  Disappointment 
may  have  followed  this  expectation,  for  the  hopes  excited  by  this 
prophet  do  not  appear  to  have  been  reahzed  at  once.  On  the  cylinder 
(11.  30  f.)  Cyrus  says  that  he  returned  to  their  homes  the  gods  of  a 
great  many  towns,  brought  together  the  inhabitants,  and  restored 
both  temple  and  dwelling-places.  Whether  this  extended  beyond 
the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Babylon  may  rightly  be  questioned. 
Of  the  Jews  "  comparatively  few  availed  themselves  of  this  permission, 
but  these  few  formed  the  starting-point  of  a  development  which  has 

I  Annals,  3.22  f.  '  Isa.,  chaps.  40-55. 


HISTORICAL   SURVEY  5 

been  of  infinite  importance  for  the  history  of  the  world.'"  Yet  "the 
importance  of  Cyrus  for  Israel  lies  less  in  anything  he  actually  did 
than  in  the  great  expectations  which  he  excited,  expectations  which 
in  their  turn  exercised  a  great  influence  on  the  ideas  ultimately  formed 
by  the  Jews  as  to  the  earher  stages  of  their  restoration  after  the  mis- 
fortunes of  the  exile."^ 

In  his  personality  C>tus  is  amiable  both  in  history  and  in  legend. 
He  is  the  simple  leader  and  king,  tolerant  in  his  dealings  with  his 
subjects,  and  mild  in  his  government  of  the  empire,  granting  Ms 
subjects  a  sort  of  self-government.  The  empire  of  Cyrus  was  a  world 
of  tolerance.  He  certainly  was  a  remarkable  man  and  truly  a  great 
king.  And  yet  he  left  the  empire  in  an  unorganized  condition.  The 
treasures  of  Ecbatana,  Sardis,  and  Babylon  became  the  property  of 
the  king  and  not  of  the  empire.  The  great  contribution  of  C}tus  to 
his  time  was  the  laying  of  a  foundation  for  a  better  empire  in  that 
he  broke  with  the  hated  Assyro-Babylonian  system  of  rigid  and 
arbitrary  rule.  It  was  left  to  his  successors  to  establish  the  empire 
on  this  broad  foundation. 

Cyrus  left  two  sons,  Bardiya  and  Cambyses,  whose  mother  was 
Kassandana,  also  of  Achaemenian  descent.  Cambyses  (Kambudsija) 
succeeded  his  father  on  the  throne,  529-522.  The  empire  of  Cyrus 
was  capable  of  expansion.  On  the  frontier  was  Egypt  whose  wealth 
was  alluring  and  which  was  a  menace  to  the  empire.  Just  at  this 
time  occurred  the  death  of  Amasis,  and  his  successor  on  the  throne 
was  the  weak  king  Psammetich  III.  This  was  Persia's  opportunity 
and  Cambyses  seized  it.  He  spent  the  first  four  years  of  his  reign  in 
preparation  for  an  expedition  against  Egypt.  Before  leaving  Persia 
he  secretly  killed  his  brother  Bardiya  in  order  to  avoid  a  revolt  at 
home  during  his  absence.  The  Greeks  of  Asia  Minor,  the  Cyprians, 
and  the  Phoenicians  furnished  a  large  fleet  under  the  command  of 
Phanes  and  Halicarnassus  formerly  in  the  service  of  the  Egyptians. 
Cambyses  at  the  head  of  an  army,  after  a  single  battle  at  Pclusium, 
entered  Egypt  in  the  spring  of  525,  and  soon  was  lord  of  the  whole 
country  from  Memphis  to  Kush.  The  neighboring  Libyans  and  the 
Greek  cities  of  Cyrene  and  Barca  readily  submitted.  Even  the 
Soudan  and  parts  of  Kush  were  added  to  the  conquered  territory. 

I  Noldeke  op.  cit.  23.  *  C.  P.  Tide  Art.  "Cyrus"  in  E.  B.  I.  982. 


6  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS   REIGN 

Cambyses  appears  to  have  been  moody  and  hateful  in  impassioned 
moments.  His  action  in  Egypt  was,  to  say  the  least,  unwise  and 
impolitic.  He  burned  the  mummy  of  the  late  king  Amasis,  and  with 
his  own  hand  inflicted  a  mortal  wound  on  the  sacred  Apis  at  Memphis. 
Consequently  he  was  unpopular  in  Egypt  as  well  as  at  home.  Sud- 
denly the  news  of  a  rebellion  at  home  spread  through  the  empire. 
Gaumata  (pseudo-Smerdis)  pretended  to  be  the  king's  brother 
Bardiya  and  made  claims  to  the  throne.  The  people,  displeased 
with  the  long  absence  of  Cambyses,  were  the  more  ready  to  accept 
the  pretender.  Cambyses  was  on  his  return  when  he  learned  of  the 
terrible  insurrection.  At  Hamath,  in  northern  Syria,  he  put  an  end 
to  his  Hfe  in  522.  Gaumata  was  accepted  by  the  people,  but  not  by 
the  leading  families  who  knew  him  to  be  an  impostor. 

Hystaspis,  the  father  of  Darius,  was  the  real  heir  to  the  throne, 
but  he  lacked  courage  to  rise  against  the  pseudo-Smerdis.  A  con- 
spiracy of  seven  representative  men  of  illustrious  families  was  formed 
to  murder  the  impostor.  Darius  was  undoubtedly  the  leader  of  this 
heptad  from  the  beginning.  The  conspiracy  was  completely  suc- 
cessful. Guamata  was  slain  in  a  fortress  near  Ecbatana  and  Darius 
(Daryavaus)  I  became  king  of  the  Persian  empire,  521-485.  It  only 
remained  for  him  to  find  recognition  among  the  Persian  people  who 
had  accepted  Gaumata.  He  married  Attossa,  daughter  of  Cyrus,  who 
had  already  been  married  to  her  brother  Cambyses  and  to  the  pseudo- 
Smerdis.  This  alone  brought  him  favor  with  the  people.  He  also 
restored  the  temple  which  Gaumata  had  destroyed  and  set  aright 
everything  else  the  impostor  had  altered. 

All  over  the  empire  there  were  rebellions  which  had  to  be  quelled. 
Western  Asia  alone  remained  quiet.  First  the  rebellion  in  Lydia 
was  quieted  and  then  that  in  Babylonia  where  Nebuchadrezzar,  a 
descendant  of  Nabunaid,  had  arisen  to  claim  the  throne.  Even  in 
Persia  another  pseudo-Smerdis  appeared  in  the  absence  of  Darius. 
In  Media  Phraortes,  a  real  or  a  pretending  descendant  of  the  old 
Median  royalty,  became  king  and  was  recognized  by  the  Parthians 
and  Hyrkanians.  In  Susiana  Imani  arose  as  king.  Another  Nebuch- 
adrezzar arose  in  Babylonia.  The  ruling  power  of  Darius,  his  great 
energy  and  circumspect  enabled  him  speedily  to  conquer  all  these 
difficulties.     As  early  as  519  all  these  insurrections  were  suppressed 


HISTORICAL  SURVEY  7 

SO  that  they  were  not  to  be  feared  again  during  his  reign.  Darius 
commemorated  this  event  by  an  inscription  in  word  and  picture  in 
the  stone  cliff  at  Behistun. 

Darius  was  now  free  to  devote  his  efforts  to  the  inner  estabHsh- 
ment  of  the  empire.  In  this  work  he  manifested  his  true  greatness 
and  rendered  his  chief  service  to  the  world.  Darius  was  not  so  great 
a  general  as  Cyrus,  but  he  was  a  greater  king.  He  was  the  first 
statesman  of  Asia.  The  rulers  of  the  older  empires,  Assyria  and 
Chaldaea,  were  unlimited  despots,  gods  upon  the  earth.'  Darius 
was  the  most  remarkable  king  of  the  dynasty  of  all  the  native  kings 
of  Ir^n,  as  energetic  as  he  was  prudent.^  He  set  the  standard  for  the 
empire  until  the  days  of  Alexander  the  Great.  He  delegated  power 
to  governors  and  satraps  who  were  free  almost  like  kings,  but  he  kept 
the  reins  in  the  hands  of  the  central  power.  To  further  the  organiza- 
tion he  constructed  a  network  of  highways  and  instituted  a  regular 
system  of  posts.  In  this  way  the  king  could  have  his  "eyes"  and 
"ears,"  i.  e.,  his  royal  commissioners  and  his  royal  secretaries,  in  each 
of  the  twenty  provinces,  into  which  the  empire  was  divided.  He 
substituted  a  new  and  better  system  of  coinage  for  that  of  the  Lydians, 
and  established  a  regular  system  of  taxes  to  the  great  benefit  of  the 
state.  Such  a  centralized  government  was  excellent  as  long  as  there 
was  a  strong  and  energetic  man  at  the  center.  As  soon  as  this  was 
missing  it  gave  equally  great  opportunity  for  satraps  and  governors 
to  rise  as  kings.  Political  organization  in  Asia  reached  its  greatest 
height  under  Darius.  It  was  the  most  satisfactory  ever  devised  by 
Orientals. 

Along  with  the  poHtical  development  followed  the  religious. 
Zoroastrianism^  had  already  found  favorable  conditions  for  spreading 
over  Persia  during  the  liberal  reign  of  Cyrus.  The  tolerance  of 
Darius  granting  to  all  freedom  of  language,  customs,  and  religion, 
was  especially  favorable  for  its  spread  and  development.  It  is  not 
a  mere  accident  that  during  this  statesman's  reign  the  Jewish  com- 
munity at  Jerusalem  revived  again,  partly  indeed  through  the  in- 
spiration furnished  by  returned  exiles,  but  more  largely  through  the 
energy  of  the  people  of  Palestine  roused  up  through  the  prophets 

1  justi  op.  cit.  56.  3  K.  Geldner  Art.  "Zoroastrianism"  in  E.  B.  IV.  §  6. 

2  Noldeke  op.  cit.  41. 


8  ARTAXERXES  UI  OCHUS  AND  HIS  REIGN 

Haggai  and  Zechariah,  which  resulted  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple, 
519-516.' 

An  organized  empire  with  such  a  system  of  government,  paralleled 
by  its  religious  development,  was  capable  of  still  greater  expansion. 
Cyrus  had  conquered  Lydia  and  Babylonia.  Cambyses  added 
Eg}'pt.  Darius  organized  the  whole  into  one  vast  empire.  But 
this  was  not  enough.  He  had  desires  to  follow  the  example  of  his 
predecessors.  India,  though  probably  only  a  portion  of  the  region  of 
the  Indus,  is  mentioned  in  the  inscriptions  of  the  palace  of  PersepoUs 
and  in  the  epitaph  of  Darius,  but  not  in  the  Behistun  inscription. 
From  this  it  may  be  inferred  that  Darius  added  a  portion  of  India 
to  his  empire. 

An  expedition  against  the  Scythians  proved  altogether  unsuccess- 
ful, not  because  of  their  superiority  over  the  Persians,  but  on  account 
of  physical  conditions  of  the  country  with  which  Darius  did  not 
reckon  sufficiently.  Before  setting  out  from  Susa  with  an  army 
of  700,000  men  towards  the  Bosporus,  Darius  sent  Ariamnes,  satrap 
of  Cappadocia,  with  a  fleet  of  thirty  ships,  to  sail  to  the  Scythian 
coast  to  capture  some  of  the  Scythians.  The  Ionian  Greeks  were 
called  upon  to  furnish  a  fleet  of  600  ships.  The  campaign  was 
carried  on  on  a  large  scale  and  was  continued  far  inland  but  with  no 
results. 

The  Persians  were  absorbed  in  schemes  of  a  universal  empire. 
There  was  one  more  nation  at  that  time  which  had  grown  to  such 
dimensions  and  stood  in  such  close  proximity  to  the  Persian  empire 
that  it  would  naturally  become  a  part  of  the  empire  or  in  time  become 
a  menace  to  it.  This  nation  was  Greece.  Before  continuing  the 
history  of  Persia  we  must  turn  aside  a  little  and  take  a  glance  at  this 
rising  world  power,  and  see  how  through  it  the  history  of  Persia  was 
modified. 

A  thousand  years  and  more  before  Persia  was  known  as  a  separate 
nation  there  were  civilizations  of  a  high  order  on  the  borders  of  the 
Aegean.  Troy  and  Mycenae  had  already  been  succeeded  by  later 
civilizations.  From  the  northern  and  more  backward  parts  of  the 
peninsula  came  Dorian  migrations  and  supplanted  in  some  parts, 

>  Hag.,  chaps,  i,  2,  Zech.,  chaps.  1-8.  A  later  largely  traditional  account  of 
the  restoration  is  found  in  Ezra-Neh. 


HISTORICAL  SURVEY  9 

but  in  others  supplemented  the  earher  peoples.  There  were  two 
particular  Hnes  of  development  on  the  peninsula,  one  the  Dorian, 
with  its  center  at  Sparta,  the  other  the  Ionian,  with  its  center  at  Athens. 
No  sooner  were  these  centers  formed  than  began  the  expansion  and 
colonization  in  the  neighboring  states  of  Greece,  the  islands  of  the 
Aegean,  and  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  where  twelve  cities  were  founded 
of  which  Miletus  was  the  most  important.  This  whole  district  took 
the  name  of  Ionia.  The  process  of  colonization  continued  to  the 
islands  and  borders  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  through  the  Bosporus 
to  the  shores  of  the  Euxine.  At  the  centers  kings  made  room  for 
oligarchies,  and  these  in  turn  were  overthrown  by  tyrants,  who 
finally  gave  place  to  democracies.  In  military  and  i)olitical  organiza- 
tion Sparta  excelled.  In  Athens,  on  the  other  hand,  art  and  literature, 
science  and  philosophy  reached  their  fullest  expression,  particularly 
under  the  favorable  conditions  during  the  prosperous  reign  of 
Lycurgus. 

It  was  not  till  about  the  year  500  that  the  Greek  and  oriental 
civilizations  came  into  close  touch  with  each  other,  and  it  is  here 
where  the  interest  of  Persian  history  in  Greece  begins.  Persia  was 
at  this  time  a  mighty  organized  empire,  while  Greece  consisted  of  a 
large  number  of  disunited  cities  and  small  states.  In  this  Hellenic 
world  there  were  three  centers:  Greece,  the  Asiatic  coast,  and  Sicily. 
To  the  close  of  the  sixth  century  the  Ionian  Greeks  of  Asia  Minor 
excelled  the  others  in  culture.  As  early  as  560,  when  Croesus  became 
king  of  Lydia,  they  were  subdued  by  that  monarch.  When  Cyrus 
conquered  Lydia  in  547  the  Greek  cities,  after  some  resistance,  became 
a  part  of  the  empire  and  so  lost  their  leadership  among  the  Greeks. 
In  the  year  500,  possessed  by  a  love  of  liberty,  these  lonians  revolted 
against  Persia.  Reinforced  by  ships  from  Athens  and  Eretria  they 
made  an  attack  upon  Sardis.  The  city  was  taken  but  the  citadel 
withstood  the  attack.  The  Greeks  were  driven  back  and  defeated  at 
Ephesus.  The  Persians  now  came  with  a  great  fleet  to  Cyprus,  which 
had  joined  the  lonians.  The  Persians  were  met  and  defeated  by  the 
lonians  at  sea  off  Salamis  in  Cyprus,  but  beat  them  in  turn  on  land. 
Cyprus,  after  being  free  only  one  year,  came  under  Persian  power 
again.  A  decisive  struggle  was  concentrated  about  Miletus,  up  to 
that  time  by  far  the  most  important  of  all  the  Greek  cities  in  Asia.     A 


lO  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

complete  overthrow  was  the  result  after  a  long  defense  on  land  and 
on  sea. 

Immediately  after  the  Ionian  revolt  Darius  began  vast  prepara- 
tions for  the  invasion  of  Greece.  A  great  army  under  Mardonius, 
the  king's  son-in-law,  was  gathered  at  the  Hellespont.  A  large  fleet 
was  equipped  to  accompany  the  arniy  with  supplies.  In  492  the 
army  set  out  but  suffered  constant  attacks  by  savage  Thracian  tribes, 
and  the  fleet  was  dashed  to  pieces  by  a  storm  near  the  rocky  prom- 
ontory off  Mount  Athos.  As  a  result  Mardonius  was  forced  to 
retreat  into  Asia.  Two  years  later  a  second  expedition  was  made 
against  Greece  and  on  a  larger  scale.  The  command  was  entrusted 
to  the  Median  Datis  and  the  younger  Artaphernes.  They  set  out 
in  the  spring  of  490  direct  from  Euboea.  Naxos  was  taken  and 
Eretria  destroyed.  The  Athenians  and  Plataeans,  under  Miltiades, 
met  the  Persians  at  Marathon  and  utterly  defeated  them.  This  was 
the  first  great  victory  over  the  Persians  in  the  open  field.  By  this 
victory  Athens  rendered  immortal  service  to  Europe  and  the  cause 
of  civihzation.  For  the  Greeks  themselves  the  victory  proved  an 
inspiration  for  later  daring  enterprise.  Darius  ordered  preparations 
for  a  new  expedition  to  wipe  out  the  disgrace  of  Marathon,  but  did 
not  live  to  carry  out  his  plans. 

In  Egypt  Darius  promoted  material  well-being.  By  building 
a  canal  from  the  Nile  to  the  Red  Sea  he  increased  facilities  for  com 
merce.  He  had  early  offered  a  reward  for  the  finding  of  a  new  Apis 
to  take  the  place  of  the  one  killed  by  Cambyses.  This  won  him  the 
favor  of  his  subjects.  The  new  Apis  lived  till  the  thirty-first  year 
of  Darius.  The  prudent  rule  of  the  Persian  king  gave  him  a  place 
among  six  great  lawgivers  in  the  legal  code  of  the  Egyptians.'  But 
the  old  hatred  against  the  Persians  rose  again  and  in  the  last  years 
of  Darius  Egypt  was  in  a  state  of  revolt  against  the  empire. 

After  the  death  of  Darius  his  son  Xerxes  (Chsaj^s^)  I,  through 
the  influence  of  his  mother  Atossa,  the  daughter  of  Cyrus,  succeeded 
him  on  the  throne,  485-464.  He  was  in  all  points  inferior  to  Darius. 
With  him  begins  a  scries  of  weak  and  unworthy  kings,  and  a  conse- 
quent decline  of  the  empire  held  together  only  by  the  solid  foundation 
which  Darius  had  given  it.     Unfortunately  the  sources  for  the  Persian 

•  Justi  op.  oil.  55. 


HISTORICAL  SURVEY  II 


history  after  Darius  are  few.  The  inscriptions  are  fewer  than  before 
and  give  less  of  the  events  of  the  reigns  of  kings.  Herodotus  closes 
his  account  with  the  battle  of  Plataea,  so  that  we  are  thrown  back 
upon  the  fragmentary  accounts  especially  of  Greek  writers.  "What 
we  gather  from  classic  writers  as  to  the  affairs  of  the  Persian  court 
is  a  sad  history  of  alternate  weakness  and  cruelty,  corruption,  murders, 
intrigues  and  broken  faith,"' 

Xerxes  suppressed  the  revolt  of  Egypt  which  had  broken  out  during 
the  last  years  of  his  father  Darius,  and  laid  a  much  harder  yoke 
upon  them.  The  king's  own  brother  Achacmcncs  became  satrap 
of  the  country.  In  Babylon  the  Persian  satrap  Zopyrus  was  mur- 
dered, but  his  son  Megabyzus  suppressed  the  revolt. 

The  most  important  undertaking  of  Xerxes  was  the  conquest  of 
Greece.  Darius  had  resolved  to  wipe  out  the  stain  of  Marathon, 
but  was  kept  from  it  through  frequent  revolts  in  the  empire  and  his 
death.  Xerxes  now  decided  to  carry  out  his  predecessor's  resolve. 
Extensive  preparations  were  made  and  the  king  himself  set  out  to 
Sardis,  the  first  rendezvous.  Supphes  were  collected  and  the  Helles- 
pont bridged.  In  the  spring  of  480  Xerxes,  with  an  army  of  at  least 
a  milhon  soldiers,  besides  attendants,  and  accompanied  by  a  fleet  of 
1,200  ships,  set  out  on  the  expedition.  Greece  was  forced  into  hurried 
preparation  and  a  greater  unity  than  before  existed  among  the 
different  states.  The  one  great  change  in  Greece  since  the  victory 
of  Marathon  that  was  against  Xerxes  was  the  building  of  a  great 
fleet  through  the  efforts  of  Themistocles.  Athens  had  become,  during 
the  last  few  years,  the  greatest  naval  power  in  Hellas.  Xerxes  entered 
Greece  without  a  blow.  The  Thessalian  cities  joined  the  invaders 
with  their  powerful  cavalry.  The  Greeks  decided  to  make  a  stand 
at  Thermopylae,  but  in  vain,  for  the  Persian  army  forced  their  way, 
after  a  three  days'  battle  over  the  dead  bodies  of  Leonidas  and  his 
faithful  three  hundred.  At  Pclusium  four  hundred  Persian  ships 
were  wrecked  in  a  storm  and  the  rest  were  checked  by  the  Greeks 
in  a  sternly  contested  conflict.  Xerxes  now  advanced  on  Athens  and 
was  joined  by  nearly  all  the  states  of  central  Greece.  The  city  was 
abandoned  and  the  Athenians  took  refuge  on  their  fleet.  Themisto- 
cles, delaying  the  retreat  of  the  fleet  at  Salamis,  sent  a  treacherous 

I  C.  P.  Tide  Art.  "Persia"  in  E.  B.  III.  3,674. 


12  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

message  to  Xerxes  pretending  friendship,  notifying  him  of  the  weak- 
ness and  dissension  of  the  Greeks.  Xerxes  accepted  the  treacherous 
advice  to  block  the  straits  in  order  to  prevent  their  escape.  The  only 
thing  to  do  now  was  to  fight.  The  Persian  fleet  more  than  doubled 
the  Greek  which  consisted  of  378  ships.  A  conflict  lasting  from 
dawn  till  night  resulted  in  an  overwhelming  victory  for  the  Greeks. 

Xerxes,  boastfully  and  vaingloriously  watching  the  struggle  from 
the  shore,  now  cowardly  and  efi'eminately  resolved  to  return  to  Asia  in- 
stead of  pressing  farther  inland.  He  left  the  land-forces  under 
Mardonius  who  withdrew  to  Thessaly  to  spend  the  winter.  Athens 
was  burned  a  second  time  and  Attica  laid  waste.  The  next  spring 
the  final  contest  was  fought  near  Plataea,  479,  where  the  Persian 
army  of  nearly  300,000  was  almost  completely  destroyed  by  the 
Greek  force  of  about  one-third  that  number.  This  was  the  turning- 
point  of  Persian  history.  The  Persians  were  thrown  back  on  the 
defensive.  The  defeat  was  so  complete  that  no  hostile  Persian  dared 
ever  set  foot  on  European  Greece  again.  Oriental  centrahzed 
despotism  was  crushed  by  the  rising  freedom  and  repubhcan  indi- 
vidualism. The  fall  of  Persia  resulted  in  the  ripening  of  Greek  art 
and  thought. 

Xerxes  retreated  into  the  depths  of  Asia.  The  Greeks,  invited 
by  the  Greek  islanders,  crossed  over  to  the  Asiatic  coast  and  at  Mycale, 
near  Miletus,  the  rest  of  the  Persian  fleet  was  annihilated.  All  the 
islands  of  the  Aegean  were  permanently  wrested  from  the  Persians 
and  the  hberation  of  the  Asiatic  coast  was  begun.  This  defeat  in 
Greece  worked  disadvantageously  in  the  empire  at  home.  In  the 
very  heart  of  the  empire,  as  well  as  in  the  distant  frontier,  tribes  were 
regaining  their  independence.  More  dangerous  for  the  empire  was 
the  confidence  the  victory  of  the  Greeks  put  into  their  minds  to  turn 
the  spear  and  to  enter  into  the  enemy's  own  home.  It  was  left  for 
Alexander  the  Great  to  do  this.  Xerxes  was  assassinated  by  Arta- 
banus,  captain  of  the  body-guard.  His  younger  brother  Artaxerxes, 
in  league  with  the  murderer,  put  to  death  his  older  brother  Darius, 
who  had  a  better  title  to  the  throne.  Artabanus  was  soon  afterwards 
put  out  of  the  way  by  Artaxerxes,'  who  thereby  made  himself  secure 
for  the  throne. 

I  C£.  Jusli  op.  cil.  126  for  another  view. 


HISTORICAL  SURVEY  I3 

Artaxerxes  (Artachsathra)  I,  sumamcd  Longimanus  {MaKpox^ip) 
by  the  Greeks,  became  king  in  his  father's  stead,  464-424.  Im- 
mediately after  his  accession  he  had  to  quiet  the  revolt  of  the  Bactrians 
which  may  have  been  instigated  by  the  king's  older  brother  Hystaspis, 
then  satrap  of  Bactria.  After  two  battles  they  were  brought  to 
subjection. 

In  Egypt  a  second  revolt  broke  out,  this  time  through  Inarus,  son 
of  Psammetich,  a  Libyan  prince  who  was  proclaimed  king  over  all 
Egypt.  He  had  stirred  up  a  revolt  against  the  satrap  Achaemenes 
who  fell  in  battle.  Inarus  summoned  aid  from  Athens.  The  Per- 
sians in  turn  sought  help  from  Sparta  but  failed.  The  Persians  then 
dispatched  a  large  army  from  Syria,  under  Mcgabyzus,  who  was  at 
that  time  satrap  of  Syria.  After  hard  fighting  the  Athenians  in  Egypt 
were  wiped  out,  and  Inarus  was  captured  and  crucified.  Upon  this  fol- 
lowed a  treaty  of  peace  between  Persia  and  Athens.  The  Persians 
agreed  to  send  no  ships  of  war  into  Greek  waters  and  the  Athenians 
in  turn  renounced  all  rights  in  the  eastern  seas. 

Meanwhile  the  jealousy  between  Athens  and  Sparta  increased  and 
resulted  in  the  Peloponnesian  war,  431-404.  By  reason  of  this  war 
Persia  was  secure  from  her  greatest  foe,  Athens.  During  the  early 
years  of  war  there  was  repeated  communication  between  Sparta  and 
Persia.  The  Spartans  wanted  the  assistance  of  Persia  in  tlie  war, 
but  were  not  skilful  in  obtaining  it,  and  the  Persians  were  too  ignorant 
and  selfish  to  grant  it.  Athens  also  sought  help  from  Persia  but 
naturally  in  vain. 

Artaxerxes  was  not  a  bad  but  a  weak  man,  governed  by  courtiers 
and  women.  His  mother  Amestris  and  her  daughter  Amytes,  wife  of 
Megabyzus,  both  cruel  and  dissolute  women,  exercised  a  controlling 
influence  on  him.  He  rendered  his  chief  service  to  the  empire  in 
replenishing  the  finances  which  were  exhausted  during  the  wars  of 
Xerxes,  and  in  restoring  order  throughout  his  empire. 

Within  his  reign  fall  the  activity  of  the  prophet  Malachi,  the 
rebuilding  of  the  wall  through  the  efforts  of  Nehemiah,  and  the 
introduction  of  the  law  through  Ezra.  The  memoirs  of  Nehemiah 
and  of  Ezra  are  compositions  that  were  written  at  this  time.  Signifi- 
cant is  the  quarrel  of  Megabyzus,  satrap  of  S>Tia,  with  the  Persian 
court,  a  quarrel  which  lasted  several  years  and  was  brought  to  a  close 


14  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

only  after  a  severe  conflict.  In  the  treaty  of  peace  Megabyzus  was 
granted  full  pardon.  "It  is  not  improbable  that  this  war  was  the 
occasion  of  the  destruction  of  the  walls  and  gates  of  Jerusalem 
lamented  by  Nehemiah.'" 

After  the  long  reign  of  Artaxerxes  followed  two  sudden  changes 
on  the  throne.  The  only  one  of  his  eighteen  sons  eligible,  Xerxes  II, 
the  son  of  Damaspia,  was  murdered  hy  his  half-brother  Sogdianus, 
the  son  of  the  Babylonian  Alogune,  forty-five  days  after  his  accession. 
He  in  turn  was  overthrown  by  his  brother  Ochus,  satrap  of  Hyrkania, 
after  a  reign  of  six  and  a  half  months,  and  in  violation  of  solemn  oaths 
was  put  to  death.  Ochus  assumed  the  name  of  Darius  II,  423-404. 
The  Greeks  called  him  Nothus  (Bastard).  He  left  the  supreme  power 
in  the  hands  of  his  sister  and  consort  Par}^satis,  the  prompter  of  all 
his  acts  and  all  his  crimes.  The  empire  in  the  hands  of  a  weak  ruler 
became  the  scene  of  uncontrollable  rebelhons.  In  Syria  and  in  Asia 
Minor  there  were  repeated  revolts.  Soon  after  410  Egypt  was  lost 
to  the  Persians  for  a  period  of  over  sixty  years.  The  throne  of 
Phraortes  was  again  estabhshed  with  Amyrtaeus  as  the  first  inde- 
pendent king.  For  all  this  time  the  Persians  were  unable  to  reduce 
the  unwarlike  Egyptians,  a  fact  which  shows  the  weakness  of  the 
Persians  rather  than  the  strength  of  the  Egyptians  who  were  fre- 
quently divided  by  internal  strife. 

In  Greece  the  Peloponnesian  war  was  hastened  to  a  close  by  a 
dreadful  catastrophe  in  Sicily,  where  two  hundred  perfectly  equipped 
ships  and  over  4,000  men  were  pitilessly  sacrificed  through  the  miser- 
able generalship  of  their  leader  Micias  in  413.  This  gave  the  Persians 
hope  to  regain  the  seacoast.  At  once  their  satraps,  both  the  untrust- 
worthy Tissaphernes  of  Sardis  and  his  rival,  Pharnabazus  of  Helles- 
pontine  Phrygia,  appeared  upon  the  coast  of  the  Aegean.  The 
Spartans  sought  the  aid  of  the  Persians  and  offered  to  betray  the 
Asiatic  Greeks  into  their  hands.  The  aid  thus  received  enabled 
Sparta  to  carr\'  on  the  war  with  Athens,  a  war  which  was  hastening 
to  a  close.  Cyrus,  the  younger  son  of  Darius  II,  was  made  satrap 
of  Lydia,  Phrygia,  and  Cappadocia,  and  commander-in-chief  of  all 
the  troops  in  Asia  Minor,  while  the  treacherous  Tissaphernes  retained 
only  the  seacoast.     Cyrus  had  a  burning  desire  to  avenge  the  defeats 

>  Noldeke  op.  cil.  56. 


HISTORICAL   SURVEY  I5 

the  Persians  suffered  from  the  Athenians.  Hence  he  sought  to  ally 
himself  closely  with  Sparta.  Just  at  this  time  the  command  fell  to 
the  energetic  unscrupulous  Lysandcr.  These  two  men  were  the 
ruin  of  Athens.  Cyrus  furnished  the  gold,  Lysander  did  the  work. 
In  405  her  last  fleet  was  captured  at  Aegospotami.  Lysandcr  in  cold 
blood  put  to  death  the  4,000  Athenian  citizens  among  the  captives. 
In  the  following  year  the  proud  city  surrendered  to  the  mercy  of  her 
enemies  and  promised  to  follow  Sparta  in  peace  and  war.  The  fall 
of  Athens  was  at  the  same  time  the  beginning  of  the  fall  of  Hellas. 

About  the  time  of  the  peace  between  Athens  and  Sparta,  Darius 
II  died.  His  older  son,  Arsicas,  ascended  the  throne  as  Artaxerxes 
II,  later  known  as  Mnemon  (Thinker),  404-358.  The  younger  son, 
Cyrus,  was  the  abler  and  more  powerful,  far  more  worthy  of  the  throne 
than  his  brother,  and  at  the  same  time  the  favorite  of  his  mother 
Parysatis.  When  Darius  II  was  upon  his  death-bed  Cyrus  was 
summoned  to  his  side,  yet  Artaxerxes  was  made  king.  Cyrus  after- 
ward made  an  attempt  to  seize  the  throne,  but  too  late.  He  was 
arrested,  and  only  at  the  request  of  Parysatis  was  he  released  and 
sent  back  to  his  satrapy.  Within  himself  he  was  resolved  to  occupy 
his  father's  throne.  He  collected  under  false  pretext  an  army  of 
over  10,000  Greeks  and  100,000  Persians,  and  in  401  set  out  in 
face  of  the  greatest  difficulties  with  the  purpose  of  seizing  the  throne. 
His  effort  was  a  failure  and  he  was  slain  in  the  battle  of  Cunaxa 
near  Babylon.  The  leaders  of  his  army  perished  through  cruel  and 
cowardly  treachery.  The  10,000  Greeks  chose  new  generals  and 
retreated  through  wild  and  mountainous  regions  to  the  Greek  dis- 
tricts on  the  Euxine,  suff'ering  untold  hardships  both  from  the  severe 
cUmate  and  the  barbarous  people.'  The  expedition  revealed  to  the 
Greeks  the  weakness  of  the  Persian  empire,  the  cowardice  of  its 
rulers,  and  the  great  tracts  of  land  regarded  as  royal  territor}-^  but 
which  were  altogether  independent.  All  this  was  remembered  till 
the  days  of  Alexander. 

Sparta  had  rendered  assistance  to  Cyrus  and  thus  incurred  the 
hatred  of  Persia.  Agesilaus  was  burning  with  the  ambition  of  freeing 
the  Asiatic  Greeks  who,  a  Uttle  before,  had  been  abandoned  to  Persia. 
This  resulted  in  war  between  Sparta  and  Persia.     In  396  Agesilaus 

I  Xen.    Anabasis  i-vii. 


l6  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

invaded  Asia  Minor  with  a  large  army.  This  in  turn  raised  new 
enemies  for  Sparta  in  Greece,  particularly  Thebes  and  Corinth,  who 
did  not  share  equally  in  the  Spartan  gains  in  the  victory  over  Athens. 
These  cities  now  joined  Athens  and  Argos  against  Sparta  and  Persia, 
who  supphed  the  aUies  with  gold.  Agesilaus  was  recalled  in  394. 
When  he  reached  the  frontier  of  Boeotia  he  heard  the  dread  tidings 
that  Conon,  in  command  of  a  Phoenician  fleet,  had  completely  des- 
troyed the  Spartan  naval  power  at  Cnidus.  With  this  the  Spartan 
authority  in  the  Aegean  vanished  at  once.  Their  sovereignty  over 
the  seas,  after  lasting  ten  years,  was  forever  gone.  Athens  was  again 
raised  to  the  place  of  one  of  the  great  powers,  and  Sparta  fell  back 
into  her  former  position  of  one  state  among  many. 

After  a  few  more  years  of  indecisive  war,  Sparta  sought  peace  with 
Persia.  In  387  the  two  powers  invited  all  the  Greek  states  through 
their  ambassadors,  Antalcidas  and  Teribazus,  to  send  deputies  to 
Sardis,  where  the  Persian  king  dictated  the  term  of  peace  as  follows: 

King  Artaxerxes  deems  it  just  that  the  cities  in  Asia,  with  the  islands  of 
Clazomenaj  and  Cyprus,  should  belong  to  himself;  the  rest  of  the  Hellenic  cities, 
both  great  and  small,  he  will  leave  independent,  save  Lemnos,  Imbros,  and 
Scyros,  which  three  are  to  belong  to  Athens  as  of  yore.  Should  any  of  the  parties 
not  accept  this  peace,  I,  Artaxerxes,  together  with  those  who  share  my  views 
(the  Spartans),  will  war  against  the  offenders  by  land  and  sea.' 

This  peace  was  a  great  gain  to  the  Spartans,  for  they  gave  up 
nothing  which  they  still  possessed,  and  gained  a  greater  power  over 
the  mainland  than  they  had  before,  since  Greece  was  divided  into 
many  petty  httle  states.  The  only  gain  to  Persia  was  a  firm  hold  on 
the  seacoast.  It  was  known  that  the  Persian  empire  was  now  much 
weaker  than  when  peace  was  concluded  with  Athens  and  that  it  was 
now  only  maintained  by  Greek  mercenaries.  Sixteen  years  later, 
at  the  battle  of  Leuctra,  371,  Sparta  was  overthrown  and  Thebes  rose 
to  supremacy  under  Phihp  of  Macedon,  to  fall  again  at  his  death. 

Another  enemy  rose  up  against  Persia  in  the  west.  Euagoras  of 
Salamis  had  become  the  almost  independent  lord  of  Cyprus.  Athens 
was  obhged  to  support  him  for  the  services  of  Conon  in  her  behalf 
against  Sparta.  Although  formally  leagued  with  Persia  against 
Sparta,  Persia  made  great  efforts  to  reduce  him  to  subjection,  but 

»  Xen.  Hellenica  v.  i. 


HISTORICAL   SURVEY 


17 


did  not  succeed  for  ten  years  and  then  only  in  part.  Euagoras  was 
murdered  but  his  descendants  continued  to  be  princes  of  Cyprian 
towns. 

On  the  borders  of  the  Caspian  Sea  the  Kadusians,  who  perhaps 
were  never  completely  subdued,  kept  annoying  the  king's  territory. 
Artaxerxes  made  a  disastrous  campaign  against  them  from  which 
he  escaped  with  his  life  only  with  great  difficulty.  There  was  re- 
peated warring  with  Egypt  also  without  accomplishing  anything. 
The  last  part  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  II  was  filled  with  revolts  of 
the  satraps  of  Asia  Minor,  which  must  have  weakened  the  imperial 
power  immensely  in  the  western  provinces  and  certainly  prepared 
the  way  for  Macedonia. 

In  Egypt  Tachos  now  occupied  the  throne.  In  361  he  actually 
assumed  the  offensive  against  Persia.  The  Spartans  sent  them  aid, 
for  they  were  bitterly  enraged  against  Persia  on  account  of  her  recog- 
nition of  the  independence  of  Messinia.  But  when  Tachos  was 
engaged  in  Phoenicia  his  nephew  Nectanebus  set  himself  up  as  rival 
king.  This  obliged  Tachos  to  take  refuge  with  the  Persians.  This 
would  have  been  an  excellent  opportunity  for  the  Persians  to  subdue 
Egypt  again  but  they  made  no  effort  in  that  direction. 
^  Artaxerxes  II  was  a  mild  and  friendly  monarch,  but  a  man  without 
energy.  He  suffered  many  misfortunes  which  a  man  of  greater 
strength  could  have  prevented.  "The  contempt  for  his  brother 
which  Cyrus  exhibited  was  perfectly  justified:  under  the  effeminate 
king  the  empire  gradually  fell  to  pieces.'"  Not  the  energy  of  Artaxer- 
xes but  the  dissensions  among  his  enemies  kept  the  empire  from  the 
fate  which  awaited  it  some  twenty  years  later.  With  the  exception 
of  Egypt  the  empire  remained,  in  name  at  least,  the  Persian  empire. 
After  having  reigned  forty-five  or  forty-six  years  Artaxerxes  died. 
His  oldest  son  Darius  had  been  declared  by  his  father  as  his  successor. 
But  before  his  father's  death  Darius  incurred  his  ill-will.  Atossa, 
wife  as  well  as  daughter  of  Artaxerxes,  espoused  the  interests  of 
Ochus,  a  younger  son.  Darius,  through  the  discontented  courtier 
Teribazus,  plotted  to  assassinate  his  father.  He  failed  in  his  attempt 
and  both  he  and  Teribazus  were  put  to  death.  This  improved  the 
chances  of  Ochus,  but  there  were  still  two  older  brothers  in  the  way, 

I  Noldeke  op.  cit.  75. 


l8  ARTAXERXES  III  OCHUS   AND   HIS  REIGN 

Arsanes  and  Ariaspes.  Both  of  these  Ochus  had  removed,  one  by- 
treacherous  poisoning,  the  other  by  assassination,  so  that  he  now 
stood  next  in  order. 

After  Artaxerxes  II  died,  Ochus  (Vakuka)  became  king  under  the 
name  of  Artaxerxes  III,  358-338.  As  king  he  manifested  the  same 
sanguinary  dispositions  as  those  by  which  he  placed  himself  on  the 
throne.  At  the  very  beginning  of  his  reign  he  massacred  a  number 
of  his  nearest  relatives,  among  them  his  two  younger  brothers  and 
his  sister  Ocha,  in  order  to  secure  himself  on  the  throne.  Such 
executions  were  common  to  oriental  despots.  Even  Alexander  the 
Great  put  several  near  relatives  to  death  after  ascending  the  throne. 
For  a  while  the  whole  empire  seemed  to  be  in  a  state  of  dissolution. 
A  century  and  a  quarter  had  passed  since  the  days  of  Darius  I, 
and  this  was  a  period  of  gradual  weakening  and  decay  of  the  empire. 
The  heritage  of  Ochus  was  anything  but  desirable.  Artabazus, 
satrap  of  Hellespontine  Phrygia,  deserted  to  the  court  of  Philip  of 
Macedonia,  and  with  him  the  Rhodian  Memnon,  his  brother-in-law. 
Orontes  also  became  an  enemy  of  the  king  and  entered  into  alli- 
ance with  the  Athenians.  In  Egypt  the  war  continued.  Phoenicia, 
previously  so  trustworthy,  also  revolted,  and  with  it  Cyprus.  Judea 
likewise  was  rebellious  against  Persia.  It  required  all  the  energy 
of  the  cruel  king  to  bring  these  revolting  countries  into  subjection 
again.     In  this  task,  however,  he  proved  himself  efficient. 

After  the  battle  at  Leuctra,  371,  Thebes  was  at  the  head  of  Greece. 
This  lasted  for  a  short  time  only,  for  on  the  north  a  new  nation  was 
forming  itself  which  was  destined  by  reason  of  its  able  kings  to  rise 
to  that  primacy  for  which  Sparta,  Athens,  and  Thebes  in  turn  had 
vainly  striven.  A  consolidated  monarchy  came  into  conflict  with 
divided  and  mutually  jealous  states.  This  country  was  Macedonia, 
with  the  ambitious  and  powerful  Philip  II  at  its  head.  Demosthenes 
tried  in  vain  to  stir  up  Greece  against  the  inroads  of  Philip.  The 
monarch  invaded  Greece  with  a  powerful  army,  and  both  Athens  and 
Thebes  were  crushed  at  the  battle  of  Chaeronca,  338.  This  left 
Philip  master  of  Greece.  The  history  of  Hellas  was  ended.  All 
this  was  a  preparation  on  a  large  scale  for  the  final  conquest  and 
overthrow  of  Persia  through  the  son  and  successor  of  Philip,  only 
a  few  years  later. 


HISTORICAL  SURVEY  19 

It  appears  that  Ochus  was  keen  enough  to  sec  the  danger  of  his 
empire  through  PhiHp,  and  that  he  entered  into  negotiations  with 
Athens  and  rendered  her  assistance.  There  are  evidences  also  that 
PhiHp  entered  into  a  treaty  with  Ochus.  This  may  have  been  in 
good  faith  on  the  part  of  Persia,  but  not  so  with  Phihp,  who  simply 
wanted  time  enough  to  conquer  Greece  before  invading  Persia. 
By  his  great  energy  Ochus  smothered  every  revolt  and  really  re- 
stored for  the  time  the  Persian  supremacy.  He  was  murdered  by 
Bagoas,  an  Egyptian  eunuch,  and  his  youngest  son  Arses  was  placed 
on  the  throne.' 

Of  the  reign  of  Arses,  338-335,  httle  is  known.  In  the  spring  of 
336  a  Macedonian  army  for  the  first  time  crossed  over  into  Asia 
under  the  command  of  Parmenio,  but  little  or  nothing  was  accom- 
plished, for  Parmenio  was  recalled  when  in  the  same  year  Philip  was 
assassinated.  Memnon,  in  command  in  Asia  Minor,  probably  soon 
won  back  all  the  Macedonian  conquests.  When  Arses  tried  to  get 
rid  of  his  patron,  Bagoas  poisoned  him  and  gave  the  crown  to  Darius, 
the  great-grandson  of  Darius  II. 
>-  Darius  III,  Codomannus,  335-331,  was  about  forty-five  years  of 
age  when  he  was  placed  on  the  throne.  Bagoas  could  not  have  made 
a  worse  choice.  He  had  hoped  to  rule  Darius,  but  being  unable  to 
do  so  he  prepared  the  poison  cup  for  him.  The  king  noticing  his 
intention  compelled  Bagoas  to  drink  the  cup.  Unlike  Ochus,  Darius 
was  an  incapable  despot  whom  Alexander  could  easily  conquer.  He 
was  "a  king  no  better  than  Xerxes,  valiant  perhaps  in  ordinary 
fights  but  quickly  confused  in  great  emergencies,  and  in  no  wise 
equal  to  the  gigantic  task  imposed  on  his  weak  shoulders."' 

Philip  of  Macedon  was  succeeded  on  the  throne  by  his  son  Alex- 
ander, then  only  twenty  years  old.  He  at  once  showed  himself  both 
statesman  and  general,  to  the  great  surprise  of  his  subjects.  The 
revolts  all  over  the  empire  were  quickly  suppressed.  Thebes  was 
razed  to  the  ground  because  of  revolt.  The  other  cities  were  fright- 
ened into  submission.  Early  in  the  spring  of  334  he  crossed  the 
Hellespont  with  35,000  discipHned  troops.  He  swept  everything 
before  him  with   wonderful  rapidity.     At   the   Granicus,   a  small 

1  For  a  full  treatment  of  the  reign  of  Ochus  vide  chap,  ii,  pp.  26  f. 

2  C.  P.  Tiele  Art.  "Persia"  in  E.  B.  III.  3,674. 


20  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

Stream  in  the  Troad,  the  Persians,  under  the  leadership  of  the  satraps 
of  Asia  Minor,  attempted  to  check  his  advance,  but  their  large  army 
was  utterly  routed.  This  victory  made  Alexander  master  of  all 
Asia  Minor.  The  Rhodian  Memnon,  at  this  time  at  the  head  of  a 
fleet  that  ruled  the  sea,  purposed  to  recall  Alexander  by  carr}'ing 
war  into  Greece.  Island  after  island  was  captured.  The  Greeks 
began  to  look  to  Memnon  to  save  them  from  the  Macedonian  power. 
But  just  then  Memnon  died  and  his  successor,  Pharnabazus,  was 
unable  to  carry  out  his  plans,  greatly  to  the  advantage  of  Alexander. 

Before  marching  farther  inland  the  Mediterranean  coast  had  first 
to  be  made  secure.  Hence  Alexander  turned  to  the  south.  At  Issus 
a  Persian  army  of  600,000,  led  by  Darius  himself,  met  liim  in 
November  in  ;^^T),  and  was  driven  back  with  great  loss.  Cyprus 
surrendered  to  the  Macedonians.  Egypt  hailed  Alexander  as  their 
dehverer.  In  the  spring  of  331,  after  founding  the  city  that  bears 
his  name,  Alexander  left  Egypt  and  marched  through  Syria  to  the 
northeast.  In  October  of  the  same  year  he  won  the  decided  victory 
over  the  large  Persian  army,  said  to  have  numbered  a  million  soldiers, 
at  Gaugamela.  Darius  fled  for  safety  to  Media.  The  battle  was 
decisive.  The  Persian  empire  was  ended,  and  Alexander  was 
temporary  master  of  the  whole  east.  The  march  was  continued 
eastward  and  the  capitals  of  the  empire,  Babylon,  Susiana,  Ecbatana, 
and  Persepohs,  surrendered  with  all  their  enormous  treasure.  Darius 
was  pursued  and  finally  captured  by  Bessus,  satrap  of  Bactria,  and 
slain  in  330.     The  last  of  the  Achaemenian  great  kings  had  fallen. 

Bessus  assumed  the  title  of  king  as  Artaxcrxes  IV,  not  altogether 
without  ground,  for  he  was  a  relative  of  Darius.  After  many  an 
adventure  he  came  into  the  power  of  Alexander  who  had  him  brought 
to  Ecbatana  to  be  executed.  The  campaign  was  carried  far  into  the 
east,  beyond  the  Indus  to  the  mountainous  regions,  until  Alexander 
was  forced  to  return  because  his  soldiers  refused  to  advance  any 
farther.  During  his  absence  Baryaxes  declared  himself  king  of 
Media  and  Persia,  but  was  soon  captured  and  executed.  Alexander 
returned  to  Babylon  which  he  made  his  capital.  Europe  and  Asia 
had  joined  hands.  There  was  one  mighty  world-empire  subject  to 
the  will  of  one  world-emperor.     And  this  also  was  of  short  duration. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  HISTORY  OF  OCHUS  AND  HIS  REIGN,  358-338 

A.      THE   HISTORICAL   SOURCES 

Diodonis  Siculus  was  born  in  Agyrium  in  Sicily  and  lived  during 
the  reigns  of  Caesar  and  Augustus,  49  b.  C.-14  a.  d.  He  wrote  a 
universal  history  in  forty  books,  called  Bi/SXiodi^Ka,  a  work  cover- 
ing a  period  of  eleven  hundred  years  and  extending  to  the  subjugation 
of  Gaul  and  Britanny  through  Caesar.  He  labored  forty  years  at 
this  work,  wrote  without  careful  criticism,  and  often  embodied  un- 
digested fragments  from  his  sources.  Only  Books  I-V,  the  early 
history  of  Egypt,  Ethiopia,  Assyria,  and  other  oriental  nations,  as  well 
as  of  Greece,  and  Books  XI-XX,  480-302,  are  preserved.  Of  other 
books  fragments  remain.  For  Book  XVI,  covering  the  reign  of 
Ochus,  he  used  the  history  of  Ephorus  composed  in  the  fourth  century, 
consequently  close  to  or  during  the  reign  of  Ochus.* 

Flavius  Josephus  was  born  in  Jerusalem,  37  a.  d.,  and  lived  till 
after  the  death  of  Agrippa  II  who  died  in  the  third  year  of  Trajan 
in  the  year  100.  He  was  a  descendant  of  John  Hyrcanus,  of  priestly 
family,  and  a  Pharisee.  After  the  war  of  Titus  against  Jerusalem 
Josephus  went  to  Rome  where  he  wrote  his  four  works:  (i)  Bcllum 
Judaicum  in  seven  books,  relating  the  history  of  the  siege  and  fall  of 
Jerusalem  under  Titus,  66-63;  (2)  Antiquitates  Judaicae  in  twenty 
books,  telling  the  history  of  the  Jews  from  the  beginning  till  the  out- 
break of  the  war  in  66;  (3)  Vita,  an  autobiography;  and  (4)  Contra 
Appionem,  concerning  the  antiquity  of  the  Jews.  His  works  were 
all  written  in  Greek. ^ 

The  Persian  period  is  treated  in  Ant.  xi.  Of  this  book  one  section, 
xi.  7.1,  is  often  quoted  as  giving  informatian  of  the  treatment  of  the 
Jews  under  Ochus.  But  this  falls  in  the  post-biblical  period.  The 
whole  period  from  Nehemiah  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  440-175,  is 
filled  largely  with  legendary  material.^     Yet  the  passage  in  question 

I  Cf.  Schiirer  Gesch.  des  Jud.  Volbes  I.  107. 

»  Ibid.  74-106.  3  Ibid.  82. 


22  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

is  generally  accepted  as  historically  reliable,  in  spite  of  Wellhausen^ 
who  calls  it  a  loose  anecdote  of  doubtful  origin  with  which  Josephus 
seeks  to  fill  out  the  gap  between  Nehemiah  and  the  Maccabees. 
Marquart*  follows  Wellhausen,  and  like  Willrich,''  after  him,  sup- 
poses that  Josephus  based  his  information  on  the  lost  work  of  Jason 
of  Cyrene,  who,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  wrote  a 
history,  in  five  books,  on  the  Maccabaean  uprising  from  its  beginning 
till  the  victory  of  Judas  over  Nicanor,  i6i.  But  if  so,  why  should 
Jason  embody  it  in  his  history  if  it  is  merely  legendary  ?  The  account 
of  so  significant  an  event  could  scarcely  find  credence  without  some 
historical  fact  back  of  it. 

Plutarch  of  Chaeronea,  in  Beotia,  lived  from  about  46-120  a.  d. 
His  great  work  is  the  Biographies  of  Illustrious  Greeks  and  Romans 
of  which  about  fifty  are  extant.  Information  is  contained  in  the 
Life  of  Artaxerxes  II  and  of  Alexander  the  Great.  For  Artaxerxes 
his  main  source  was  the  History  of  the  Persians  by  Dinon  of  Colophon, 
of  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century  b.  c.,^  a  work  which  unfor- 
tunately is  lost.  Plutarch's  dihgence  as  a  historian  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned even  if  his  accuracy  in  some  points  is  impeached. ^ 

Flavius  Arrianus,  a  Greek  of  Asia  Minor,  born  ca.  100  a.  d.,  wrote 
the  Anabasis  of  Alexander.  This  work  is  based  on  reliable  sources 
such  as  the  Royal  Court-Journal,  the  works  of  Ptolemaeus,  afterwards 
king  of  Egypt,  and  those  of  Aristobulus,  who  was  with  Alexander 
in  his  Asiatic  campaign.*^ 

Dio  Cassius,  born  at  Nicea  in  Bithynia  ca.  150  a.  d.,  was  a  man  of 
public  career  in  Rome.  He  wrote  a  history  of  Rome  about  211-229, 
consisting  of  eighty  books.  Of  the  first  thirty-four  books  only  small 
fragments,  and  of  the  next  two  books  larger  portions  remain.  Books 
xxxvii-liv  are  complete.  Of  books  Iv-xl  larger  portions  are  left, 
while  of  the  remaining  twenty  only  extracts  of  Xiphilus,  who  wrote  in 
the  eleventh  century,  are  left.' 

Caius  Julius  Solinus,  a  Roman  writer  of  the  third  century  of  the 
Christian  era,  born  ca.  230,  is  the  author  of  Collectanea  Rerum  Memor- 

'  Jud.  und  Isr.  Gesch.  192.  »  Philologus  liv.  509. 

3  Juden  und  Griechen  vor  der  Mah.  Erhebung  88  f. 

4  E.  Meyer  Gesch.  des  Alt.  Ill,  §  6.  <*  Swoboda  Griechische  Gesch.  171. 

5  Art.  "Plutarch"  in  E.  B.  7  SchUrer  op.  cit.  I.  109. 


HISTORY  OF  OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN  23 

abilium  in  fifty-six  books.  His  principal  source  was  Plinius  Historia 
Naturalis.  The  extract  is  chiefly  of  geographical  contents  known 
by  the  title  "  Polyhistor."  The  part  that  concerns  us  here  is  the 
reference  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Jericho,  35.4.  The 
best  edition  is  that  of  Th.  Mommsen,  1895.  What  immediately 
precedes  the  quotation  is  based  on  Plinius  v.  71,  72.  The  quotation 
itself  Mommsen  ascribes  to  an  unknown  source,  and  identifies 
"Hierichus"  with  "Machaerus"  after  Plinius  v.  72:  "Machaerus 
secunda  quondam  arx  Judaeae  ab  Hierosolymis.'"  It  is  evident, 
however,  that  the  last  part  of  the  quotation:  "et  haec  desivit 
Artaxerxis  bello  subacta,"  is  not  from  Plinius.  Hence  it  is  best  with 
Hoelscher  to  retain  "Hierichus"  as  in  Sohnus.^ 

Eusebius  Pamphili,  ca.  265-340  a.  d.,  in  his  Chronikon  preserves 
some  of  the  writings  of  the  Christian  chronographers  of  the  time  of 
the  emperors,  who  based  their  writings  on  those  of  Hellenistic  chronog- 
raphers, chief  of  whom  were  Eratosthenes  at  the  close  of  the  third 
century,  and  Apollodorus,  of  Athens,  in  the  second  half  of  the  second 
century.3  Probably  from  Alexander  Polyhistor  and  in  the  last 
analysis  dating  from  a  Jewish  Hellenist.  The  historic  trustworthi- 
ness is  not  to  be  doubted.-* 

Upon  Eusebius  are  based  the  references  in  Paulus  Orosius,^  a 
Christian  priest  born  in  Spain  toward  the  close  of  the  fourth  century, 
in  his  Historia  adversus  Paganos  in  seven  books. 

Also  the  Chronographia  (EKXajr]  ;;^poi^o7/3a0ta9)  of  Georgius 
Syncellus,  a  Byzantian  historian  of  the  eighth  century.  It  contains 
the  history  from  creation  to  285  a.  d.  It  is  preserved  in  the 
Chronikon  of  Eusebius.  For  a  knowledge  of  the  Christian  chronog- 
raphers the  Chronikon  of  Syncellus  is  next  to  Eusebius  the  most 
important  work.     It  is  dominated  fully  by  the  theological  spirit.^ 

Eusebius  Sophronius  Hieronymus,  a  son  of  Eusebius,  born  ca. 

»  Solinus  ed.  Mommsen  154  n. 

2  Palastina  in  der  pers.  iind  hellen.  Zeit  47. 

3  Unger  Die  Chronik  des  Apollodorus,  in  Philologus  xl.  602-51. 

4  Marquart  op.  cit.  509-10.   Cf.  Wachsmuth,  Einl.  in  das  Studium  der  alien  Gesch., 
1895,  163-76. 

s  Schiirer  op.  cit.  I.  6. 

6Cf.  K.  Krumbacher  in  Mviller's  Altertums  Wissenschajt,  1891,  IX.  1 18-19. 


24  ARTAXERXES   lU   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

340  in  Stridon  of  Dalmatia,  wrote  the  second  part  of  the  Chronikon 
of  his  father  in  Latin  and  continued  the  same  from  325-379.' 

Justinus,  sometime  before  the  fifth  century,  wrote  his  Historiae 
Philippicae,  a  work  in  forty-four  books,  which  he  himself  describes 
in  his  preface  as  a  collection  of  the  most  important  and  interesting 
passages  from  the  voluminous  Historiae  Philippicae  et  totius  Mundi 
Origines  et  Terrae  Situs,  written  in  the  time  of  Augustus  by  Trogus 
Pompeius.  The  work  of  Trogus  is  lost,  but  the  Prologi,  or  the  table 
of  contents  of  the  forty-four  books,  and  a  few  fragments  of  the  text 
are  preserved  by  Justinus  and  Plinius.  Even  these  Prologi  and  brief 
extracts  contain  a  large  amount  of  valuable  information.*  E.  Meyer 
thinks  it  probable  that  Justinus  also  obtained  his  information  from 
Eusebius.3 

B.      LITERATURE 

Geo.  Grote  History  of  Greece,  1854^,  X.  506  f.;  XI.  605  f.;  XII. 
100  f.  Ewald  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  1864-68^.  Engl,  transl., 
1869-86.  Gratz  Geschichte  der  Juden  von  den  dltesten  Zeiten  bis 
auf  die  Gegenwart,  1853-1870,  Bd.  2.  ii,  Kap.  6.  F.  Justi 
Geschichte  des  alten  Persiens,  i8yg.  A.  Wiedemann  Aegyptische 
Geschichte,  1884,  II.  646-725.  E.  Meyer  Geschichte  des  alten 
Aegyptens,  1887,  394-96,  Th.  Noldeke  Aiifsdtze  zur  Persischen 
Geschichte,  1887,  57-85,  B.  Stade  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel, 
2.  Bd,,  1888,  194-96,  W.  Judeich  Kleinasiatische  Studien, 
1892,  144-79.  A*  V-  Gutschmied  Neiie  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  des 
alten  Orients,  Herausgegeben  von  Franz  Riihl.  J.  Marquart 
"Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  von  Eran,"  in  Philologus  LIV,  1895, 
507-10,  H,  Willrich  Juden  und  Griechen  vor  der  Makkabdischen 
Erhebung,  1895,  88-90,  Th,  Rcinach,  "La  dcuxieme  mine  de 
Jdricho,"  in  Semitic  Studies  in  Memory  of  Alexander  Kohut,  1897, 
457-62.  C.  H.  Cornill  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  1898,  174,  175. 
C.  Piepenbring  Histoire  du  Peuple  d^ Israel,  1898,  583-89,  611-15, 
C,  F.  Kent  A  History  of  the  Jewish  People  during  the  Babylonian, 
Persian,  and  Greek  Periods,  1899,  229-38.  H.  Willrich  Judaica. 
Forschungen  zur  hellenistisch-jildischen  Geschichte  und  T.iteratiir,  1900, 

'  See  A.  Schone  Die  Weltchronih  des  Eusebius  in  ihrer  Bearbeilung  durch  Hier- 
onymus,  1900. 

2  Schilrer  op.  cit.  I.  iii.  3  Gesch.  des  Alt.  III.  112. 


HISTORY  OF  OCHUS  AND  HIS  REIGN  25 

28  f.,  35-39,  103-6.  H.  Winckler  "Zum  Buche  Judith,"  in  Altorien- 
talische  Forschungen  II,  1899,  266-76.  H.  Guthe,  Article  "Israel" 
in  E.  B.  II,  1901.  E.  Schiirer  Geschichte  des  Jiidischen  Volkes  im 
Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi,  19023.  H.  P.  Smith  Old  Testament  History 
in  the  ''International  Theological  Library,"  1903.  G.  Holscher 
Paldstina  in  der  Persischen  und  Hellenistischen  Zeit,  1903,  46-50. 
J.  Wcllhausen  Israelitische  und  Jiidische  Geschichte,  1904s,  192-208. 
H.  Guthe  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel  1904^,  289-301. 

C.      THE   EMPIRE   OF   OCHUS 

When  Ochus  ascended  the  throne  of  Persia  the  empire  was  nom- 
inally as  large  as  in  485,  when  Darius  I  died,  although  there  had  been 
many  revolts  all  over  the  empire  during  the  century  and  a  quarter 
preceding.  The  successors  of  Darius  were  insignificant  weaklings, 
unable  to  carry  out  the  plans  of  the  great  organizer.  Consequently 
there  had  been  a  gradual  weakening  and  dissolution.  Egypt  had 
established  its  own  government  under  Amyrtaios  in  408,  and  was  in 
reality  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Persian  empire,  although  Persia  never 
recognized  its  independence.  Many  cities  of  Asia  Minor  also  claimed 
independence.  Phoenicia  and  Cyprus  were  in  a  state  of  revolt.  The 
empire  handed  over  to  Ochus  by  his  predecessors  was  a  tottering 
structure,  held  together  only  by  the  strong  organization  effected 
through  Darius  I,  and  because  there  was  no  other  great  power  ready 
to  conquer  and  destroy  it.  Yet  at  the  immediate  time  of  his  accession 
there  seems  to  have  been  a  short  time  of  quiet  and  rest. 

In  extent  no  empire  before  this  had  such  vast  dimensions  as  the 
Persian.  From  the  Indus  and  the  Oxus  on  the  east  to  the  Aegean, 
the  Bosporus,  and  Cyprus  on  the  west,  all  was  one  vast  empire.  Its 
northern  boundary  was  formed  by  the  Euxine  and  the  Caspian 
seas,  with  the  Caucasus  mountains  between  them,  while  its  southern 
limits  extended  to  the  Indian  Ocean,  the  Persian  Gulf,  and  Arabia. 
EgyjU  formed  the  southwestern  limits  of  the  empire,  including  a 
part  of  Ethiopia  and  Libya  on  the  west.  The  capital  of  the  empire 
was  Babylon.  The  divisions  of  the  empire  into  satrapies,  first 
established  by  Darius  I,  was  still  in  vogue.  There  was  the  same 
central  government,  although  the  strong  man  at  the  center  was 
wanting.     Wealth  and  force,  not  mind  and  intelligence,  were   the 


26  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

controlling  powers.     The  period  of  active  growth  had  passed  and 
the  time  of  dechne  and  decay  had  set  in. 

D.      THE   EVENTS   OF  THE   REIGN   OF   OCHUS 

As  we  have  seen  before,  Ochus  ascended  the  throne  of  Cyrus  with 
bloody  hands.  He  had  a  considerable  following  at  the  court  and 
hoped  through  Atossa,  his  mother  and  sister,  to  win  the  king's  favor. 
He  won  her  to  his  side  through  a  promise  to  marry  her  after  his 
father's  death  and  to  make  her  a  partaker  in  the  reign.  Slanderous 
reports  concerning  him  reached  his  father  who  then  appointed  Darius 
as  his  successor.'  Before  the  death  of  Artaxerxes  II,  Darius  in- 
curred his  ill-will  and  so  lost  his  claim  to  the  throne.  Upon  this  he 
made  an  attempt  at  the  life  of  his  father  through  Tiribazus.  The 
plot  failed  and  both  he  and  Tiribazus  were  executed  together  with 
fifty  others  connected  with  the  plot.^  There  were  yet  two  brothers 
older  than  Ochus,  Arsames  and  Ariaspes,  who  were  in  his  way. 
Ariaspes  was  considered  worthy  of  the  throne  by  the  Persian  people 
on  account  of  his  gentleness,  uprightness,  and  friendhness.  He  was 
recognized  as  a  reasonable  and  intelligent  man.  Ochus  knew  this 
and  consequently  sought  his  brother's  death.  He  so  annoyed  and 
vexed  him  continually  that  Ariaspes  ended  his  own  hfe  by  drinking 
the  cup  of  poison.  Artaxerxes  was  too  old  to  sec  the  treacherj'  in 
this  and  afterwards  loved  Arsames  all  the  more  and  placed  full 
confidence  in  him.  Ochus  delayed  no  longer  now.  He  compelled 
Harpates,  son  of  Tiribazus,  to  put  Arsames  out  of  the  way.  Artaxerxes 
in  his  old  age  could  not  resist  any  further.  Grief  and  sorrow  ended 
his  life  in  a  little  while. ^ 

Ochus  now  stood  first,  and  became  king  in  his  father's  place,  358. 
As  king  he  manifested  the  same  sanguinary  dispositions  as  those  by 
which  he  had  placed  himself  on  the  throne.  Whether  by  reason  of 
a  troubled  conscience  or  from  fear  of  revenge  he  did  not  rest  till  he 
had  killed  the  remaining  members  of  his  family.  His  sister  Ocha, 
whose  daughter  he  had  in  the  harem,  was  buried  alive.''  His  two 
younger  brothers  were  assassinated. s  One  of  his  uncles,  with  his 
whole  family  and  children  and  grandchildren,  eighty  in  one  day, 

»  Plut.  Artax.  26.  4  Justi  Gesch.  des  alten  Persiens  107. 

»  Justinus  X.  2.  5  Grote  Hist,  oj  Greece  x.  507. 

3  Plut.  Artax.  30. 


HISTORY   OF   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN  27 

he  ordered  to  be  shot  in  his  courtyard.'  That  he  did  not  put  to  death 
all  his  near  relatives  is  seen  from  the  fact  that  some  appear  in  later 
history.  His  successor,  Darius  III,  and  his  brother,  Oxyathres, 
were  great-grandsons  of  Darius  TL  Mithredates,  the  son-in-law  of 
Darius,  and  Pharmaces,  his  wife's  brother,  are  mentioned  after 
the  death  of  Ochus.  So  also  Arbupales,  a  son  of  Darius,  the  brother 
of  Ochus,  is  mentioned  in  334,^  and  Bisthanes,  a  son  of  Ochus,  in 
330.3  From  all  the  murderous  acts  of  the  king  Plutarch  is  justified 
in  saying  that  Ochus  excelled  all  his  predecessors  in  cruelty  and 
bloodthirstiness."* 

The  difficulties  of  Ochus  were  not  ended  when  he  had  secured  the 
throne  and  the  court.  The  revolts  suppressed  by  Artaxerxes  II 
were  only  temporarily  quieted.  Artabazus,  satrap  of  the  Helles- 
pontine  Phrygia,  Hke  Datames  and  Ariobarzancs,  his  immediate 
predecessor,  had  rebelled  against  Artaxerxes  II  and  was  captured 
by  Autophradates,  but  afterwards  released.  Now  when  Ochus,  in 
356,  ordered  all  satraps  on  the  coast  whose  revolt  he  feared  to  dis- 
charge their  mercenary  troops,  the  orders  were  obeyed.  But  when 
Ochus  wanted  Artabazus,  his  nephew — the  mother  of  Artabazus, 
Aspama,  being  the  daughter  of  Ochus — to  give  an  account  for  his 
previous  revolt  he  refused. ^  At  the  time  of  the  social  war,  about  355, 
he  fought  against  the  king's  satraps  and  was  powerfully  supported 
by  the  Athenians.  When  rumors  of  the  king's  threats  against  the 
Athenians  were  spread,  they  left  Artabazus  in  the  lurch.  But  since 
he  was  well  furnished  with  money  he  was  able  to  procure  the  services 
of  the  Theban  Pammencs,  with  5,000  men,  and  maintained  himself 
for  a  long  time.^  When  the  Thebans  also  entered  into  an  under- 
standing with  the  king,  his  fortune  took  a  turn.'  In  the  year  345 
Artabazus  was  a  fugitive  at  the  court  of  Phihp  of  Macedon  and  with 
him  his  brother-in-law,  the  Rhodian  Memnon,  one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished generals  of  his  time.^  After  the  reconquest  of  Egypt, 
two  years  later,  Memnon's  brother  Mentor  was  rewarded  for  his 
services  in  the  war  with  Egypt  with  a  hundred  talents  of  silver  and 

'  Justinus  X.  3.  I.  s  Diod.  xvi.  22;  Plut.  Arlax.  16. 

2  Arrian  i.  16.  ^  Diod.  x^'i.  34. 

3  Ibid.  iii.  19.  '  Ibid.  40. 

4  Artax.  30.  8  Ibid.  52. 


28  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

other  precious  gifts,  and  at  the  same  time  was  appointed  satrap  over 
the  rebellious  portions  on  the  coast  of  Asia.  Mentor  stood  in  close 
relation  with  Memnon  and  Artabazus  and  procured  pardon  for  them 
and  their  families.  From  then  on  till  the  overthrow  of  the  empire 
Artabazus  remained  loyal.' 

At  the  same  time  Artabazus  revolted  came  also  the  revolt  of 
Orontes,  satrap  of  eastern  Armenia  under  his  father-in-law  Arta- 
xerxes  II.'  He  had  fought  for  the  king  against  Euagoras,  king  of 
Salamis  in  Cyprus  386-363.  An  intrigue  against  Tiribazus  gave 
him  the  chief  command  in  the  Cyprian  war.^  When  his  treachery 
was  discovered  the  king  was  displeased  and  deprived  him  of  his 
position  as  satrap  of  Armenia  and  banished  him  to  Mysia  where  he 
was  satrap  under  the  immediate  oversight  of  Autophradates,  the 
most  faithful  of  all  satraps.  When,  at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Arta- 
xerxes  II,  there  was  a  general  uprising  in  western  Asia  against  the 
king  of  Persia,  he  was  appointed  commander  of  the  troops  of  Asia 
Minor.  WTien  the  plan  failed  he  betrayed  his  troops  with  the  hopes 
of  becoming  satrap  of  the  coast  lands,  the  position  of  Cyrus  the 
Younger  and  of  his  successor,  Tissaphernes.'*  His  hopes,  however, 
were  not  reahzed.  He  did  not  get  the  position  he  desired,  as  a 
reward  for  his  treachery,  but  Armenia,  of  which  he  was  deprived 
twenty  years  before. s  He  then  entered  into  an  understanding  with 
Nectanebus  of  Egypt,  but  before  the  death  of  Artaxerxes  II  was 
forced  to  submit  again.^ 

And  now,  after  Ochus  was  upon  the  throne,  this  same  Orontes' 
revolted  again  and  still  with  the  same  aim  of  becoming  satrap  of  the 
coast  districts,  254-253,  and  became  the  king's  most  dangerous 
opponent  next  to  Egypt.*  He  entered  into  an  alliance  with  Athens. 
At  this  time  a  rumor  was  current  that  the  king  of  Persia  was  pre- 
paring a  great  expedition  against  Athens  and  Greece.  The  Greeks 
probably  felt  guilty  on  account  of  their  wavering  pohcy,  and  the 
mercenary  support  which  they  had  repeatedly  lent   to  rebellious 

'  Diod.  xvi.  52. 

a  Xen.  Anab.  ii.  4.  8;  5.  40;  iii.  4.  13;  5.  17;  iv.  3.  4;  cf.  Plut.  Arlax.  27. 

3  Diod.  XV.  8,  9,  18.  6  jbid. 

4  Ibid.  gi.  7  Judeich  Kleinasialische  Studien  221-25. 
s  Justinus  Prol.  x.  »  Demosth.  De  Symmoriis  xiv.  31. 


HISTORY   OF   OCHUS   AND   HTS   REIGN  29 

satraps.  Demosthenes  warned  the  Athenians  against  taking  a 
hostile  attitude  towards  the  king  on  the  grounds  of  mere  rumors, 
and  advised  not  to  offend  the  king  frivolously,  351/  It  is  probable 
that  Orontes,  after  concluding  a  peace  favorable  to  himself,  finally- 
obtained  what  he  so  long  desired,  the  satrapy  of  the  coast  regions, 
a  position  he  held  till  after  the  reconquest  of  Egypt  in  343,  when 
Mentor  of  Rhodes  was  appointed  to  this  office  by  Ochus  for  the 
valuable  services  rendered  in  that  war.* 

Phoenicia  and  Cyprus  first  came  under  Persian  dominion  in  the 
days  of  Darius  I,  A  century  later  Artaxerxes  II,  after  a  war  of  six 
years  against  Euaxares,  king  of  Salamis,  on  Cyprus,  again  reduced 
them  to  submission  from  which  they  never  afterwards  were  able  to 
rise  to  independence.^  Toward  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
II  there  was  a  general  revolt  of  the  western  states.  Egy])t,  already 
independent,  would  have  delighted  to  see_other  states  withdraw  from 
the  Persian  empire.  The  satrapies  of  Asia  Minor  also  desired 
independence.  A  general  revolt  was  agreed  upon  but  was  sup- 
pressed before  any  real  outbreak.  This,  however,  was  only  the  lull 
before  the  storm.  Through  the  instigation  of  Egypt  the  cities  of 
Phoenicia  revolted  and  were  joined  by  the  kings  of  Cyprus.  Eua- 
goras  II  was  at  this  time  king  of  Salamis,  352.'* 

The  revolt  broke  out  in  Sidon.  It  was  the  custom  of  the  Persian 
kings  wherever  they  stayed  for  any  length  of  time  to  build  a  park 
where  everything  beautiful  and  valuable  which  the  country  produced, 
both  of  plants  and  of  animals,  was  collected.  Such  a  park  was  at 
Sidon. -^  This  was  destroyed  by  the  Sidonians.  The  hay  which  the 
Persian  officials  had  collected  for  the  war  with  Egypt  was  burned. 
The  officials  themselves  were  slain.  The  immediate  cause  for  this 
revolt  may  have  been  the  wounding  of  their  religious  feelings  by  the 
Persian  officials,  a  point  on  which  Semitic  people  are  particularly 
sensitive.'^  Tyre  and  Aradus  joined  with  Sidon  and  soon  all  Phoenicia 
was  under  revolt.  Ncctanebus  II,  of  Egypt,  in  answer  to  a  request 
from  Tennes,  king  of  Sidon,  sent  4,000  Greek  mercenaries  under 

1  Demosth.  De  Rhodiorum  Libertate  191  f. 

2  Judeich  op.  cit.  217-20.  s  Justi  op.  cit.  82. 

3  Diod.  XV.  8-10.  ^  Noldeke  op.  cit.  77. 

4  Ibid.  41,  42. 


3©  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS   REIGN 

the  command  of  the  Rhodian  Mentor.  Ochus,  still  engaged  in  the 
preparation  for  the  great  campaign,  sent  Belesys,  satrap  of  Syria, 
and  Mizaeus  of  Cilicia,  to  check  the  revolt,  but  they  were  driven 
back  by  Mentor.' 

While  this  was  taking  place  there  arose  a  war  on  the  island  of 
Cyprus.  On  that  island  there  were  nine  principal  cities  and  many 
smaller  ones  subject  to  these.  Each  city  had  a  king,  subject  to  the 
king  of  Persia.  Following  the  example  of  Phoenicia,  the  nine  kings 
agreed  to  sever  their  connection  with  Persia.  In  the  spring  of  350 
Ochus  sent  Idrieus,  satrap  of  Caria,  with  a  fleet  of  forty  triremes 
and  8,000  Greek  mercenaries,  led  by  the  Athenian  Phocion,  and 
with  him  Euagoras,  formerly  a  king  on  the  island.  They  blockaded 
the  city  of  Salamis  by  land  and  by  sea.  Volunteers  came  from  Syria 
and  Cihcia  with  the  expectation  of  obtaining  a  share  in  the  spoils  of 
the  city,  so  that  the  army  of  Phocion  was  doubled.^  All  the  cities 
except  Salamis  surrendered  to  the  Persians.  Euagoras  desired  the 
office  of  king  of  Salamis,  but  Ochus  retained  Pnytagoras,  then  king, 
who  had  surrendered  to  the  Persians  after  the  destruction  of  Sidon.^ 
He  was  king  of  Salamis  till  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great.  Thus 
the  island  was  once  more  reduced  to  submission  under  the  Persian 
power. 

Before  the  surrender  of  Salamis  the  king  of  Persia  had  left  Babylon 
and  moved  with  his  army  toward  Phoenicia.  His  army  consisted  of 
300,000  foot-soldiers,  30,000  horsemen,  300  triremes,  and  500  ships 
of  burden,  besides  other  ships  to  convey  provisions.  When  Tennes 
heard  of  the  size  of  the  king's  army  he  lost  courage.  To  save  his 
own  life  he  resolved  to  betray  his  city  into  the  enemy's  hands.  So 
he  sent  his  servant  ThessaUon  privily  to  Ochus  with  a  promise  not 
only  to  surrender  Sidon  but  to  render  him  valuable  services  in  the 
reconquest  of  Eg}'pt.  The  king  rejoiced  greatly  over  this  and 
promised  Tennes  rich  rewards.  Of  this  he  gave  ThessaUon  the 
most  reliable  security.^ 

Ochus  considered  the  conquest  of  the  greatest  importance  and 
consequently  sent  to  the  largest  cities  in  Greece  to  aid  him  in  the 
expedition.     Athens  and  Sparta  replied  that  they  wished  to  keep  the 

'  Diod.  xvi.  41,  42.  3  Ibid.  46. 

a  Ibid.  42.  4  Ibid.  43. 


HISTORY   OF   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN  3 1 

friendship  with  Persia  but  that  they  could  not  send  any  troops. 
Thebes  replied  with  i,ooo  heavy  armed  soldiers  under  Lacrates; 
Argos  sent  3,000  men  at  the  king's  request  and  consented  to  let 
Nicostratus  go  as  commander;  the  coast  cities  of  Asia  sent  6,000 
men,  making  a  total  of  10,000.  Before  their  arrival  the  king  had 
encamped  near  Sidon,  348.' 

Because  of  the  king's  delay  the  Sidonians  had  provided  them- 
selves with  sufficient  troops  and  provisions.  A  triple  wall  was  con- 
structed around  the  city.  They  also  had  more  than  a  hundred 
triremes  and  quinqueremes.  Tennes  now  persuaded  Mentor  to 
assist  in  the  betrayal  and  left  him  in  the  city,  while  he  himself  went 
out  under  pretext  of  going  to  counsel  with  the  king  and  took  with  him 
a  hundred  of  the  leading  citizens  of  Sidon.  When  he  came  near  the 
camp  he  had  the  hundred  men  arrested  and  delivered  to  Ochus. 
The  king  received  Tennes  as  a  friend  and  had  the  hundred  men 
shot  with  spears  as  instigators  of  the  revolt.  Aftenvards  500  Sido- 
nians, with  the  signal  of  fugitives,  came  to  Ochus  beseeching  him  for 
mercy  for  the  city.  These  also  were  captured  and  slain,  so  relentless 
was  his  anger  for  the  murder  of  his  officers.  Tennes  then  persuaded 
the  Egyptian  mercenaries  to  let  him  and  the  Idng  into  the  city.  The 
betrayer's  turn  came  next,  for  he  thought  now  to  have  no  more  need 
of  Tennes,  and  hence  he  had  him  slain.  Before  the  king  entered 
the  city,  the  betrayed  Sidonians,  in  their  despair,  burned  all  their  ships 
so  no  one  could  flee  for  safety,  and  then  set  the  city  on  fire  and  killed 
themselves  and  their  dependents.  It  is  said  that  40,000  people  per- 
ished. Ochus  then  sold  the  ruins  to  people  who  hoped  to  find  melted 
gold  and  silver  in  the  ashes.^  The  Greek  mercenaries,  with  their 
commander  Mentor,  whom  Neclanebus  had  sent  to  assist  Sidon,  now 
joined  Ochus  against  Egpyt.  The  remainder  of  Phoenicia  readily 
submitted  to  the  requests  of  Ochus.  This  was  the  severest  blow  the 
nation  ever  received  in  all  its  history.  This  tragic  downfall  of  the 
once  so  powerful  city  must  have  made  a  deep  impression  on  the  whole 
world.     It  was  the  best  preparation  for  the  conquest  of  Egypt. 

The  one  great  aim  of  Ochus  was  the  reconquest  of  Egypt.^     For 

I  Ibid.  44.  '  Ibid.  45. 

3  Judeich  op.  cit.   chap,  iv;    Meyer  Gesch.  des  alien  Aeg.  394-96;    Wiedemann, 
Aeg.  Gesch.  II.  700-21. 


32  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

the  wider  interests  of  the  empire  this  was  of  greatest  importance,  both 
because  of  the  great  resources  of  that  country  and  for  warding  off  the 
danger  that  might  arise  from  it  if  left  unconquered.  Egypt  was  first 
conquered  by  the  Persians  under  Cambyses  in  525.  The  Egyptians, 
however,  never  abandoned  the  hope  of  regaining  their  independence. 
Repeated  attempts  resuhed  in  failure  until  in  408,  when  under 
Amyrtaeus  the  desired  end  was  accomplished  and  Egypt  was  again 
independent  for  a  period  of  sixty-five  years.  But  Persia  was  un- 
willing to  let  go  of  so  valuable  a  portion  of  its  own  empire.  Con- 
sequently, after  the  accession  of  Artaxcrxes  II  to  the  throne  in  404, 
repeated  efforts  were  made  to  regain  the  lost  territory.  Persia  in 
fact  never  recognized  the  independence  of  Egypt.  Already  in  389, 
and  again  in  374,  expeditions  were  made  to  subdue  the  revolting 
Eg\'ptians  but  without  any  encouraging  results  for  Persia.  In  the 
early  part  of  his  reign  Artaxerxes  II  was  occupied  in  withstanding  the 
attempts  of  his  brother  Cyrus  the  Younger  to  seize  the  crown.'  All 
through  his  reign  disintegrating  forces  were  at  work  within  the 
empire,  which  the  king  was  unable  to  check  completely.  Conse- 
quently his  ability  for  reconquering  Egypt  was  weakened.^  On  the 
other  hand,  Egypt  never  ceased  to  stir  up  revolts  in  Asi^  Minor  and 
Phoenicia  and  Cyprus  against  the  hated  Persians. 

In  the  great  revolt  of  the  satraps  of  Asia  Minor,  in  361,  Egypt  took 
an  active  part.  King  Tachos  sent  them  money  and  ships,  and 
planned  to  move  aggressively  against  Persia  with  the  help  of  the 
Spartan  king,  Agesilaos,  and  the  Athenian  Chabrias.  He  was 
equipped  with  200  well-manned  triremes  under  command  of  Chabrias, 
10,000  chosen  Greek  mercenaries  under  Agesilaos,  and  80,000  foot- 
soldiers  of  Egypt  whom  he  himself  commanded.  Discord  arose 
concerning  the  plans  of  the  war  and  as  soon  as  the  expedition  started 
out,  the  king's  cousin,  Nectanebus,  rebelled  against  him  and  attempted 
to  seize  the  throne.  Agesilaos  joined  Nectanebus  and  the  whole 
undertaking  was  speedily  defeated.  There  was  nothing  left  for 
Tachos  but  to  flee.  He  first  sought  refuge  with  Straton,  king  of 
Sidon,  and  then  fled  to  the  king  of  Persia  and  surrendered  himself 
unconditionally.     He  afterwards  died  at  the  king's  court. ^ 

I  Xen.  Anab.  ii.  i.  14. 

a  Diod.  XV.  3  Ibid.  92;  Plut.  Agesilaos  37,  38.  * 


HISTORY   OF   OCHUS   AND   HIS  REIGN  33 

In  the  same  year  must  have  occurred  an  expedition  against  Egypt 
under  the  Persian  prince  Ochus,  the  first  of  the  three  expeditions 
made/  for  we  are  definitely  told  by  Eusebius^  that  Ochus  made 
an  expedition  against  Egypt  while  his  father  Artaxerxes  was  still 
living.  OSto?  6'Il;^09  et?  M^v-rrrov  i-maTpaTevam  eVt  i^SiVTO<i  rov 
irarpo^  'Apra^ep^ov,  o)?  Kal  aXXoi,  fiera  ravTa  eKpuTrja-ev  'AtyvTrrov, 
<t)€vyovTe^  NeKTave^co,  0)9  nve^,  et?  AWiOTriav,  d)?  8k  erepot,  et?  Ma/ce- 
Soviav.  It  is  not  clear  what  the  results  were  of  this  expedition.  All  that 
is  known  is  that  Nectanebus  I  was  at  this  time  the  unlimited  monarch 
of  Egypt.  Agesilaos  was  rewarded  for  his  services,  but  on  his  way 
home  he  died  in  Cyrene.^ 

When  Artaxerxes  died  and  Ochus  succeeded  him  on  the  throne, 
Egypt  continued  to  be  the  main  issue  for  the  Persians.  Extensive 
preparations  were  made  and  in  3544  a  second  campaign  was  directed 
against  Egypt,  this  time  not  by  Ochus  in  person  but  by  his  generals, 
the  satraps  of  Asia  Minor.  The  outcome  was  unfavorable  to  the 
Persians  not  only  in  its  immediate  resuhs,  but  also  in  the  effect  it 
had  on  other  portions  of  the  empire  and  the  worid  without.^  It 
encouraged  Phoenicia  and  Cyprus  and  Cilicia  to  revolt.  In  346 
Isocrates^  used  this  failure  as  an  argument  for  Phihp  to  make  war 
against  Persia  because  it  was  no  longer  to  be  feared,  to,  toivw  irepl 
rr)v  x^pf^v  <y?  SiciKeLrai,  Ti<i  ovk  civ  ciKOvam  irapa^vvdeir]  iroXefxelv 
7r^o9  avTop;  AtjvTno'i  yap  a(f)ei,a-T'i]Kai  uev  Kal  Kar  cKelvov  rov  xpovov^ 
ov  iirjv  aXX'  i(}>o/3ovvTO  fMij  irore  ^aaiXeis  auro^  TroirjadfjLevo^;  arpa- 
T€Lau  Kpar-qaeie  Kal  tj}?  8ia  rov  Trorafxov  Svaxo)pLa<;  Kal  t^9  dXXrj'i 
TrapaaKcvrj'i  dirdar}';  •  vvv  he  otro^  cnrrjXXa^ev  avrov^  rov  heov^  rovrov. 
(TV/XTrapaa-Kevaa-d/jLevo'i  yap  Svvafiiv  oarjv  old^  r'  ^v  TrXeiarr^v,  Kal 
arparevaa^  iw  avrois,  dirriXdev  eKelOev  ov  fiovov  yjTrrjOeU,  dXXd  koI 
KarayeXacrdeU,  Kal  So|a9  ovre  ^acnXeveiv  ovre  arparr^yelv  d^LO<;  ehai. 
And  yet  this  failure  did  not  discourage  Ochus  but  stimulated  him 
to  make  new  and  larger  preparations.  ^  As  we  have  seen  before, 
Ochus  set  out  from  Babylon  with  a  tremendous  army  and  had 

I  Justinus  Prol.  x. 

'  Ed.  Schone  112  =  Sync.  486.  20. 

3  Diod.  XV.  93. 

4  Demosth.  De  Rhod.  Libertate  xv.  12. 

s  Diod.  xvi.  40,  41,  44,  48;  Orosius  iii.  7.  8. 

6  Ad  Phil.  102.  7  Diod.  xvi.  40,  41. 


34  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

encamped  before  Sidon  which  he  cruelly  destroyed  in  348  and  ren- 
dered all  Phoenicia  subject  to  his  will.' 

This  victory  was  itself  the  first  step  towards  the  conquest  of  Egypt. 
Other  preparations  were  made.  Ochus  awaited  the  troops  from 
Thebes  and  Argos.  In  346  he  made  the  first  advance  of  his  third 
campaign  against  Egypt.  The  troops  missed  the  way  of  entrance 
and  a  part  of  the  army  perished  in  the  Barathra,  the  Serbonian 
swamp  between  Mount  Kasios  and  Damiata,  half-way  between 
Syria  and  Egypt,  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  sand-hills,  which  were 
frequently  carried  into  the  swamp,  forming  a  bottomless  marsh  so 
that  entire  armies  not  knowing  the  nature  of  the  swamp  could  sink 
down.^  Ochus  was  forced  to  return  to  Phoenicia  till  the  spring  of 
the  following  year,  when  he  again  started  out  against  Egypt. ^  His 
army  consisted  of  three  divisions,  led  by  three  Greek  and  three 
Persian  generals:-*  the  first  of  Boeotian  mercenaries  led  by  the 
Theban  Lakrates  and  Rosaces,  satraps  of  Ionia  and  Lydia;  the 
second  of  troops  from  Argos  led  by  Nikastrates  and  the  Persian 
Aristabazus;  the  third  of  the  Greek  mercenaries  sent  by  Egypt  to 
Sidon,  now  led  by  the  Rhodian  Mentor  and  the  Persian  eunuch 
Bagoas.  Ochus  followed  with  the  remaining  troops  as  a  reserve 
force,  s 

The  army  of  Nectanebus  consisted  of  20,000  Greek  and  20,000 
Libyan  mercenaries  and  60,000  Egyptians.  The  land  was  well 
fortified.  All  the  Nile  entrances  were  strongly  fortified,  especially 
the  one  at  Pelusium.  But  Nectanebus  was  no  great  general.  Ochus 
advanced  upon  Pelusium.  The  Greek  generals  succeeded  through 
their  maneuvering  to  bring  Nectanebus  out  of  his  position.  Con- 
sequently he  withdrew  to  Memphis.  The  approach  of  the  army 
was  enough  to  cause  the  coward  to  flee  to  Ethiopia.  The  remaining 
cities  surrendered  one  after  the  other.  The  fortifications  were  broken 
down,  the  temples  plundered  and  the  sacred  books  carried  away, 
and  returned  by  Bagoas  to  the  priests  only  after  these  paid  large  sums 
for  them.  Ochus  treated  the  religion  of  Egypt  with  little  more 
respect  than  did  Cambyses  before  him.     Not  only  did  he  desecrate 

'  Diod.  xvi.  45;  Isok.  Ad  Phil.  102.  4  Cf.  Marquart  op.  cil.  507. 

a  Strabo  x\'i.  741,  760;  Diod.  i.  30.  s  Diod.  xvi.  47. 

3  Judeich  op.  cit.  173-76. 


I 


HISTORY   OF   OCHUS   AND  HIS   REIGN  35 

their  temples  but  he  even  slaughtered  the  sacred  animals.  This  may 
account  for  the  fact  that  neither  his  name  nor  that  of  his  successors 
is  mentioned  in  the  inscriptions.' 

This  reconquest  was  a  great  triumph  for  Persia.  Through  it  the 
name  of  Ochus  received  respect.  Yet  it  was  not  hard  to  see  that  the 
victory  was  due  to  the  Greek  troops  and  commanders,  and  that  the 
Persians  did  not  conquer  by  reason  of  their  ability  in  war  but  simply 
because  they  had  the  most  money  to  pay  mercenary  troops.  It  was 
to  Mentor  and  not  to  Bagoas  that  the  king  chiefly  owed  his  success. 
Mentor  was  the  real  conqueror  of  Egypt,  yet  the  presence  of  the  king 
and  his  prompt  decisions  contributed  much  to  the  speedy  results. 
Mentor  was  splendidly  rewarded.  He  received  the  satrapy  of  the 
coast  regions  of  Asia  Minor.  By  cunning  and  treachery  he  quickly 
removed  Hermias,  the  tyrant  of  Alarucus  and  the  friend  of  Aristotle, 
who  had  concluded  treaties  like  an  independent  prince  and  stood 
in  suspicious  relations  with  king  Philip  of  Macedon.^  The  Greek 
mercenaries  were  paid  and  dismissed.  Pherendates  was  appointed 
satrap  of  Egypt,  and  Ochus  returned  triumphantly  to  his  capital, 
Babylonia,  in  343.^  Eg}^pt  remained  a  Persian  province  till  the 
close  of  the  empire. 

The  rise  of  Macedonia  as  a  political  power  dates  from  Philip  II, 
359-336.  Before  him  it  had  no  special  bearing  upon  Persian  history, 
although  invaded  and  temporarily  conquered  by  Xerxes  in  480. 
While  Philip  entered  upon  the  work  of  expanding  his  territory,  his 
eyes  were  first  of  all  fixed  upon  Greece.  At  first  his  invasions  were 
resisted  by  Athens.  For  ten  years  there  was  war  between  them. 
The  bitter  opponent  of  Philip  was  Demosthenes,  the  greatest  orator 
of  Greece,  who  at  this  time  had  espoused  the  cause  of  the  democracy, 
whose  party  leader  he  became.  He  saw  more  clearly  than  anyone 
else  the  designs  of  Philip,  and  recognized  in  him  a  dangerous  enemy 
of  Athens  and  of  all  Greece.  And  yet  in  spite  of  all  opposition 
PhiHp  advanced  step  by  step  into  Greek  territor}\  Pydna  and 
Potidaea,  two  Athenian  cities,  fell  in  356.  Three  years  later  Philip 
invaded  Thessaly  and  Phocis,  and  obtained  supremacy  there.  Demos- 
thenes poured  out  his  bitter  invectives  against  Phihp  to  arouse  the 
Athenians  to  a  sense  of  their  danger."     He  beheved  the  only  safety 

I  Ibid.  48-51.  2  Ibid.  52.  3  Ibid.  51.  ■♦  Phil,  i,  p.  54- 


36  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

for  Greece  now  lay  in  an  alliance  with  the  Persians  against  Philip. 
He  favored  the  negotiations  now  going  on  between  Athens  and  the 
king  of  Persia,  who  indeed  repeatedly  sent  subsidies  for  the  conflict 
with  Macedonia. 

In  349  Phihp  advanced  into  Thrace  and  conquered  the  Athenian 
Olynthus.  The  only  hope  now  of  saving  middle  Greece  from  the 
inroads  of  Philip  was  to  enter  into  a  treaty  of  peace  with  him.  Even 
Demosthenes  consented  to  this.  There  arose  at  this  time  a  Mace- 
donian party  right  in  Athens  under  the  leadership  of  Aeschines,  the 
rival  politician  of  Demosthenes.  Differences  arose  betw^een  the  two 
orators  which  later  resulted  in  unreconcilable  animosity.  A  peace 
was,  however,  concluded  in  346,  which  gave  Phihp  the  Athenian 
colonies  on  the  Thracian  coast.  In  a  letter  of  Darius  to  Alexander 
it  is  definitely  stated  that  Philip  concluded  a  peace  also  with  Ochus 
shortly  after  the  reconquest  of  Egypt.'  The  king's  intentions  no 
doubt  were  pure  but  not  so  those  of  Phihp.  He  had  to  subdue 
Greece  first  before  he  could  conquer  Asia  Minor,  and  for  this  purpose 
peace  with  Persia  was  advantageous  to  him.  The  honest  but  pohti- 
cally  shortsighted  Isocrates  overlooked  this  fact  when  he  urged 
Philip  to  attack  Persia.  Phihp  saw  in  Persia  a  great  obstacle  to  liis 
aims  for  a  large  empire.  Hence  his  attitude  toward  Persia  was 
definite  and  decisive.  Persia  must  recede  before  Macedonia.  The 
only  reason  for  delay  was  to  await  the  proper  moment.  It  is  probable 
that  Phihp  tried  to  gain  a  foothold  in  Asia  Minor  through  Artabazus 
who  had  fled  to  his  court  for  safety.  But  when  Ochus,  after  the 
reconquest  of  Egypt,  appointed  the  skilful  general  and  diplomat, 
Mentor,  and  restored  Artabazus  to  his  hereditary  satrapy,  he  under- 
stood the  political  situation.  He  thereby  fortified  Asia  Minor.  He 
was  aware  of  Phihp's  plans.  There  was  no  immediate  danger,  but 
Ochus  noticed  the  attempts  of  Phihp  to  secure  the  mastery  of  the 
Bosporus  and  of  the  Hellespont.     This  was  sufficient  cause  for  alarm. 

It  was  in  the  year  340  that  Philip  sent  a  fleet  into  the  Hellespont 
and  began  to  besiege  Perinthus.  Phihp's  plans  were  no  longer  a 
secret.  Conflict  between  Macedonia  and  Persia  were  now  inevitable. 
The  Athenians  sent  an  embassy  to  Ochus  for  help  against  Phihp 
which  Ochus  refused,  for  he   was   not  well  disposed   toward  the 

I  Arr.  ii.  14. 


HISTORY   OF   OCHUS   AND   HIS  REIGN  37 

Athenians.  But  when  PhiHp  continued  his  siege  of  Perinthus,  Ochus 
ordered  the  coast  satraps  to  help  Perinthus  with  all  their  power. 
Through  the  help  of  Athens  and  Persia  Perinthus  was  saved  from 
the  power  of  Phihp.'  Thereupon  Ochus  sent  troops  to  invade 
Thrace  in  order  to  weaken  Phihp  in  his  own  country,  but  with 
little  effect.  The  help  that  Persia  gave  Perinthus  was  to  the  Mace- 
donians equivalent  to  a  declaration  of  war.  The  Persians  did  not 
see  as  we  now  do  from  the  result,  that  it  was  necessar}'  for  them  to 
prevent  the  subjugation  of  Greece  to  insure  their  own  safety.  Or 
if  they  saw  it  they  lacked  energy  to  act.^  The  reasons  for  their 
failure  to  help  Athens  and  Greece  are  not  evident.  After  the  battle 
of  Chaeronea,  338,  Phihp  was  master  of  Greece.  Just  at  this  time 
Ochus  died  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Arses.  Upon  this  Phihp 
openly  sought  to  unite  the  Greeks  against  the  Persians.  In  the  spring 
of  336  he  sent  troops  to  Asia  Minor  to  free  the  Greek  cities.  But 
Persia  was  not  to  suffer  much  at  his  hands,  for  in  the  summer  of  the 
same  year  Philip  was  assassinated.  Persia  was  granted  a  breathing- 
spell  but  only  for  a  brief  while.  The  work  which  Philip  had  begun 
was  carried  to  its  completion  by  his  son  and  successor  on  the  throne, 
Alexander  the  Great.^ 

The  rehable  sources  outside  of  the  Old  Testament  for  the  history 
of  Judea,  during  the  reign  of  Ochus,  are  scanty.  Only  fragmentary 
evidence  is  at  hand,  yet  of  sufficient  rehabihty  to  enable  us  to  form 
a  reasonably  definite  conception  of  the  conditions  and  events  during 
that  time.  Judea  always  held  a  middle  geographical  position  be- 
tween larger  and  contending  countries.  At  first  it  was  Assyria  and 
after  that  Babylonia  on  the  one  side,  and  Egypt  on  the  other.  Now 
it  was  Persia  and  Egypt  in  their  long-continued  struggles  with  each 
other.  So  closely  was  Judea  connected  with  Phoenicia  and  Syria 
that  it  was  always  affected  by  their  successes  or  reverses,  so  that 
Judea's  fate  can  be  inferred  partly  from  that  of  its  close-linked 
neighbors.  That  \-iolent  disturbances  occurred  among  the  Jews 
during  the  reign  of  Ochus  is  generally  recognized  among  historians. 
Just  what  these  disturbances  were,  and  through  what  agencies  they 

1  Diod.  XV.  75;  Arr.  ii.  14. 

2  Noldeke  op.  cit.  80. 

3  Diod.  xvi.  91;  Just.  ix.  5,  6;  Arr.  ii.  14. 


38  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS   REIGN 

were  brought  about,  and  at  what  definite  time,  are  matters  of  less 
certainty  and  of  differences  of  opinion. 

There  appear  to  have  been  two  uprisings  in  Judea  during  the 
reign  of  Ochus.  This  was  estabhshed  already  by  Gutschmied.' 
The  first  of  these  came  in  close  connection  with  the  second  campaign 
of  Ochus  against  Egypt,  353-52.^  It  is  more  than  likely  that  the 
Jews  revolted  against  the  Persians  who,  on  their  way  to  Egypt,  passed 
in  front  of  their  homes.  Why  should  they  be  led  away  into  cap- 
ti\'ity  to  Hyrcania  {vide  infra)  except  for  revolting  against  the  Persians 
and  for  refusing  to  yield  to  all  their  wishes  and  encroachments  ?^ 
Since  the  days  of  Jeremiah  Egypt  had  been  more  or  less  of  an  asylum 
for  many  Jews.  In  this  way  there  may  have  grown  up  something  of 
a  kindred  feeling  between  Jews  and  Egyptians. ^  This  fact  may  also 
have  added  to  the  Jewish  hatred  of  the  Persians  now  advancing 
against  Egypt  under  the  command  of  the  satraps  of  Asia  Minor. 
Both  Diodorus  and  Plutarch  speak  of  the  cruelty  of  Ochus  in  his 
court  and  in  his  rule  over  the  empire  {vide  infra).  From  such  a 
ruler  we  would  then  expect  just  such  treatment  of  the  Jews  who 
showed  no  inclination  to  be  obedient  subjects  to  a  nation  whose 
reUgion  was  so  different  from  their  own. 

Actual  traces  of  just  what  we  would  otherwise  expect  are  found 
in  our  historic  sources.  The  first  of  these  to  notice  is  a  quotation 
from  Solinus  35.4:  "Judaeae  caput  fuit  Hierusolyma,  sed  excisa 
est.  Successit  Hierichus:  et  haec  desivit,  Artaxerxis  bello  subacta." 
Dodwell^  and  more  recently  Th.  Reinach^  advanced  the  supposition 
that  the  Artaxerxes  mentioned  is  Ardashir  I,  the  founder  of  the 
Sassanid  kingdom,  224-242  a.  d.,  who  threatened  Syria  under 
Alexander  Severus  in  233  A.  d.     Reinach  thinks  that  Solinus  mis- 

'  Jahrbiicher  fur  Klassische  Philologie,  1863,  714;  so  Ewald  Gesch.;  and  Judeich. 
op.  cit.  170,  171. 

»  Hieronymus,  359-58,  but  in  the  seventh  year  of  Ochus.  Armenian  Transl. 
354. 

3  Gratz,  Gesch.  der  Juden  II.  2.  no,  thinks  if  the  captivity  can  be  accepted  as 
history,  then  it  is  due  to  their  adherence  to  their  doctrines  and  convictions. 

4  Cf.  The  Assuan  Papiri. 

5  In  Hudson  Geograph.  Graec.  II.  71. 

6  "La  deuxi^me  ruine  de  Jericho"  in  Sem.  Studies  in  Memory  of  Alex.  Kohul, 
457-462. 


HISTORY   OF  OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN  39 

interpreted  his  source,  Plinius,  and  wrote  Jericho  for  Machaerus. 
"Solin  aurait  mal  interpr^te  le  texte  de  Pline,  changd  par  inadvert- 
ance  Machaerus  en  Hiericus."'  How  could  Sohnus,  a  writer  of 
mediocrity,  get  a  hold  of  such  an  isolated  fact  ?  The  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  was  that  of  the  year  70  a.  d.  through  Titus,  after  which 
Jericho  also  was  destroyed.  "Hierichus  successit"  must  be  inter- 
preted cum  grano  salis,  not  that  Jericho  became  the  capital  of  Judea, 
but  that  it  was  the  second  city  in  rank.  And  this  it  was  no  more  in 
the  fourth  century,  hence  it  experienced  a  disaster  after  Titus  and 
before  Solinus.  Within  this  time  there  was  an  Artaxerxes,  namely 
Ardashir  I.  He  and  not  Ochus  is  meant  in  the  quotation  of  Solinus. 
Jericho  was  destroyed  not  by  the  Persians  but  by  the  Romans  for 
siding  with  the  Persians.  For  how  could  the  Persians  invade  Jericho 
with  its  strong  fortifications  ?  Moreover,  why  should  they  ?  What 
occasion  was  there  for  it  ?  There  was  no  cause  for  the  Jews  to  be 
provoked  at  the  Persians,  but  every  reason  for  them  to  hate  the 
Romans  who  imposed  taxes  upon  them  and  restricted  their  efforts 
in  making  proselytes.  Finally  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus 
could  easily  have  been  mistaken  for  that  of  Alexander  Sevcrus  by 
Solinus  following  Jerome  and  Eusebius.  Reinach  concludes  by 
admitting  that  this  is  only  a  conjecture,  but  thinks  that  it  has  the 
advantage  of  not  doing  violence  to  the  text  and  that  it  affords  a  more 
reasonable  view  of  the  histor)\  Schiirer^  inclines  to  accept  this  and 
calls  the  quotation  a  confused  remark  usually  applied  to  the  cam- 
paign of  Ochus  against  the  Jews.  He  is  followed  by  E.  Meycr^ 
who  thinks  it  better  to  apply  the  passage  to  the  reign  of  Ardashir  I. 
Cheyne  also  accepts  the  conclusion  of  Reinach. 

On  the  other  hand,  is  it  not  just  as  easy  to  assume  that  Solinus 
had  a  source  unknown  to  us  otherwise,  from  which  he  learned  the 
fact  stated,  as  to  think  that  he  confused  names  and  dates  of  events  ? 
Why  should  the  Romans  destroy  Jericho  when  the  enemy  with  whom 
the  Jews  are  supposed  to  have  sympathized  never  crossed  the  Eu- 
phrates at  this  time  ?  It  is  just  as  easy,  and  this  may  be  the  correct 
interpretation,  to  take  "excisa  est"  cum  grano  salis  as  "Hierichus 
successit,"  and  say  that  the  disaster  that  befell  Jerusalem  was  not  a 
destruction   like   that   through   Nebuchadrezzar,   or   later   through 

I  P.  457.  '  Op.  cit.  III.  6.  n.  3  Gesch.  des  Alt.  III.  212. 


40  ARTAXERXES   III  OCHUS  AND  HIS  REIGN 

Antiochus  Epiphanes,  or  through  Antiochus  Sidetes,  nor  yet  like 
that  of  Titus,  but  some  lesser  disaster  that  made  less  impression 
upon  the  world  outside  and  yet  temporarily  at  least  made  Jerusalem 
unfit  or  undesirable  for  a  capital. 

Mommsen'  has  rightly  taken  the  opposite  \'iew  and  has  con- 
clusively shown  the  impossibility  of  Reinach's  conclusion  since  there 
is  no  evidence  that  Ardashir  I  ever  came  near  Palestine.^  Twice 
he  made  an  attempt  to  advance  westward,  but  was  unable  to  cross 
the  Mesopotamian  desert.  In  233  he  met  with  some  success  in  the 
Roman  Asiatic  possessions,  but  was  defeated  by  Alexander  Severus 
in  a  great  battle.^  Under  the  Roman  Maximus,  235-238,  Mesopo- 
tamia came  into  the  power  of  Ardashir  and  the  Persians  again  threat- 
ened to  cross  the  Euphrates.  In  242  the  Romans  once  more  declared 
war  against  the  Persians  and  defeated  them  completely.  Ardashir 
had  demanded  from  Rome  all  the  provinces  formerly  in  the  empire 
of  Darius  but  never  obtained  them.  There  was  a  long  and  bitter 
conflict  between  the  Romans  and  the  Sassanids,  but  no  evidence 
can  be  adduced  that  Ardashir  ever  crossed  the  Euphrates.''  Nothing 
is  mentioned  of  a  destruction  of  Jericho.  Mommsen  says:^  "Hoc 
scio  neque  a  SoUno  usquam  taha  citari  ipsius  aetate  gesta  neque 
Artaxerxen  ilium  attigisse  Palaestinam."  The  citation  from  Dio 
Cassius^  does  not  prove  in  any  way  that  Ardashir  advanced  farther 
than  the  Euphrates.  Holscher'  therefore  rightly  concludes  that 
the  quotation  from  Solinus  points  to  Artaxcrxes  II  and  that  since 
there  is  nothing  against  its  credibihty  there  remains  nothing  but  to 
accept  it  as  fact. 

Another  reference  is  found  in  Eusebius:^  *^X°^  'Apra^ep^ov  iralf 
elf  AiyviTTOv  aTpuTevcov  /xepiKTjv  al^fidXcoaiav  elXev  'lovSaioov,  wv 
T0V9  fiev  ev  "TpKavia  KarufKicre  tt/jo?  ttj  KaaKia  daXdacrr)^  Tovt  S'  eV 
^a^vKoiVL.  ol  Koi  /^e^t  vvv  elcriv  avrodi,  &)<?  TroWot  twv  'FtXXyjvcov 
la-Topovcnv.     In  the  translation  of  Hieronymus^  we  read:  "Ochus 

»  Solinus  Introd.  vii;  cf.  Romische  Gesch.,  18863  V.  419-21. 

2  Nbldeke  op.  cit.  86-92;  Justi  op.  cit.  177-82. 

3  Lampridius  Al.  Sevreus  56.  4  E\xseh.=  Sync.  674  and  683. 
s  Solinus  Introd.  vii.  ^  Ixxx.  3. 

7  Paldslina  in  der  Pers.  u.  Hel.  Zeit  47,  48. 

^  Chron.  ed.  Schone  II.  ii2  =  Sync.  486.  10.  o  Ibid.  113. 


HISTORY  OF  OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN  41 

Apodasmo  Judaiorum  capta  in  Hyrcaniam  accolas  translates  juxta 
mare  Caspium  conlocavit."  In  the  Armenian  translation'  this  reads: 
"Ochuspartem  aliquam  de  Romanis  Judaeisque  cepit  et  habitare  fecit 
in  Hyrcania  juxta  mare  Cazbium."  There  is  some  doubt  as  to  the 
sources  from  which  Eusebius  drew  his  information  {vide  supra 
p,  24,)  but  scarcely  any  as  to  the  credibihty  of  the  facts  mentioned. 
Wellhausen^  calls  it  "eine  schwache  Kunde"  and  Stade^  considers 
the  quotation  "sehr  dunkel."  Others  accept  it  as  rehable,  and 
rightly  so.  Schiirer''  is  no  doubt  correct  in  saying  that  tow  S'  iv  ySa- 
^vKoiVL  was  added  by  Syncellus  "out  of  his  own  wisdom,"  and  that 
the  Armenian  translation  added  "de  Romanis." 

A  reference  undoubtedly  based  on  Eusebius  is  found  in  Orosius 
iii.  7:  "Tunc  etiam  Ochus,  qui  et  Artaxerxes,^  post  transactum  in 
Aegypto  maximum  diuturnumque  bellum,  plurimos  Judaiorum  in 
transmigratinem  egit,  atque  in  Hyrcania  ad  Caspium  mare  habitare 
praecepit:  quos  ibi  usque  in  hodierum  diem  amphssimis  generis  sui 
incrementis  consistere,  atque  exinde  quandoque  erupturos  opinio 
est." 

Confirming  evidence  is  also  found  in  the  condition  of  the  Jericho 
valley  at  this  time,  as  Holscher*^  has  shown  from  Diodorus'  who  had 
for  his  source  in  this  case  Hieronymus  of  Kardia,  who  wrote  in  the 
days  of  Antigonus,  323-301,  a  successor  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
No  more  rehable  source  could  be  asked  for.  According  to  this  source 
the  whole  Jericho  valley  in  the  last  decade  of  the  fourth  century  was 
no  longer  Jewish  but  Arabian,  whom  Hieronymus  calls  Nabataeans. 
Holscher*  has  pointed  out  that  their  territory  included  Idumaca, 
which  extended  from  Engedi  northward.  These  Idumaeans  then 
pressed  into  the  Jericho  valley  after  its  desolation.  As  in  earlier 
deportations,  so  now  not  all  Jews  were  removed,  but  enough  so  that 
the  general  character  of  the  land  became  Arabian. 

A  final  and  less  certain  reference  is  found  in  Justinus  xxxvi.  3: 
"Primum  Xerxes  rex  Persarum  Judaios  domuit;  postea  cum  ipsis 
Persis  in  dicionem  Alexandri   jNlagni  vencrc,  diuque  in  potestate 

1  Ihid.  112.  5 '  Apraf^p^es  6  i-KoKovdeh  Ox"*' 

2  Op.  cit.  192.  ^  Op.  cit.  48-50. 

3  Gesch.  des  Volhes  Isr.  II.  194.  '  xix.  98  =  ii.  48. 

4  Op.  cit.  III.  6,  n.  8  Op.  cit.  23-25. 


42  ARTAXERXES   III  OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

Macedonici  imperii  subjecti  Syriae  regno  fuere.  A  Demetrio  cum 
descivissent,  amicitia  Romanorum  petita,  primi  omnium  ex  oriental- 
ibus  libertatem  receperunt,  facile  tunc  Romanis  de  alieno  largien- 
tibus."  There  is  no  other  evidence  that  Xerxes  ever  forced  the  Jews 
into  subjection.  It  is  very  probable  that  we  are  to  understand  with 
Holscher'  that  the  original  reading  was  Artaxerxes  (III)  instead  of 
Xerxes.  He  thinks  that  the  information  is  based  on  Timagenes  who 
wrote  during  the  latter  half  of  the  first  century  B.  c. 

Taking  all  these  evidences  together  we  have  the  strong  probabihty 
if  not  the  absolute  certainty  that  Jericho  was  devastated  and  that  the 
Jews  were  deported  to  Hyrcania  during  the  reign  of  Ochus,  and,  as 
shown  before,  within  the  year  353-352,  as  a  punishment  for  their 
rebellion  or  at  least  for  their  refusal  to  submit  to  the  Persian  rule. 
This  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  there  was  a  large 
colony  of  Jews  in  Hyrcania  numbering  in  the  Roman  time  not  only 
thousands  but  miUions.^  Granted  that  many  of  these  went  there 
of  their  own  choice  and  that  many  more  were  born  there,  the  accept- 
ance of  these  historic  references  explains  the  beginning  of  the  colony, 
which  is  otherwise  not  explained  in  history.  Finally,  also,  the  frequent 
occurrence  of  the  name  Hyrcanus  among  the  Jews^  points  in  the 
same  direction,  and  to  the  time  of  Ochus  rather  than  to  a  later  period,'* 
since  in  the  later  period  the  name  is  already  in  common  use. 

The  second  revolt  of  the  Jews  during  the  reign  of  Ochus,  as 
Judeich,5  followed  by  Guthe,^  has  clearly  shown,  came  in  connection 
with  the  third  campaign  against  Egypt  shortly  after  the  destruction 
of  Sidon,  348,  and  before  the  final  reconquest  of  Egypt,  343.  Nol- 
deke'  incorrectly  connects  this  with  the  first  revolt,  and  Stade^  places 
it  still  earher,  namely  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  while 
Schiirer^  is  uncertain  as  to  the  date.  Willrich'°  supposes  the  Josephus 
section  to  refer  to  an  event  of  the  Alaccabaean  period.     Bagoses  is 

'  Op.  cit.  46,  n. 

»  Schiirer  op.  cit.  III.  6,  7,  based  on  Jos.  Ant.  .\i.  5.  2. 

3  Jos.  Ant.  xxii.  4.  6-11;  Vita  i;  II  Mak.  3:11;  often  in  Mishna. 

4  As  Winckler  and  VVillrich,  by  their  system  of  change  of  names,  claim. 

5  Op.  cit.  171,  n. 

6  Gesch.  des  Volkes  Isr.  292.  ^  Op.  cit.  77-78. 

8  Op.  cit.  194.  9  Op.  cit.  III.  6.  n. 

'o  Juden  u.  Criechen  vor  der  Mak.  Erhebung  88-89. 


Of  The    "^ 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 
HISTORY  OF  OCHUS  AND  HIS  REIGN  43 

not  the  Persian  Bagoas  but  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Josephus  did  not 
make  Ochus  a  persecutor  of  the  Jews.  In  fact  Ochus  was  not  an 
enemy  of  the  Jews.  All  the  references  originated  from  the  Josephus 
passage  and  that  does  not  refer  to  Ochus  but  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes.' 
That  this  conclusion  does  not  stand  appears  already  from  a  historic 
examination  of  the  sources.  Such  confusing  or  changing  of  names 
is  not  in  harmony  with  the  historic  method  of  Josephus.  Already 
Ewald^  considered  it  likely  that  the  Jews  rebelled  with  their  near 
neighbors,  the  Phoenicians,  against  the  Persians.  This  is  indeed  more 
than  probable.  Otherwise  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  their  temple 
should  be  polluted  and  additional  burdens  be  laid  upon  them.  It 
was  the  common  practice  of  the  Persians  to  inflict  such  visitations 
upon  revolting  colonists. 

In  the  section  of  Josephus^  we  read  that  after  the  death  of  the 
high  priest  Ehashib,  his  son  Judas  succeeded  him  in  that  office,  and 
he  in  turn  was  followed  by  Johanan.  He  gave  Bagoses''  ( =  Bagoas) 
occasion  to  desecrate  the  temple  and  to  burden  the  Jews  with  a  com- 
pulsory tax  of  fifty  drachmas  from  the  common  income  for  every  lamb 
before  the  sacrifice.  This  came  about  as  follows:  Johanan  had  a 
brother,  Jesus,  to  whom  Bagoses,  as  to  a  good  friend,  had  promised 
the  office  of  high  priest.  This  led  to  a  quarrel  between  the  two 
brothers  in  which  Johanan  slew  Jesus.  This  was  an  outrageous  act 
on  the  part  of  the  high  priest,  so  much  more  horrible  since  such  an 
ungodly  act  was  unheard  of  either  among  the  Greeks  or  the 
barbarians.  Consequently,  as  a  result  for  this  act,  God  allowed  the 
people  to  be  reduced  to  servitude  and  their  temple  to  be  polluted 
by  the  Persians.  For  as  soon  as  Bagoses  learned  that  Johanan  slew 
his  brother  in  the  temple  he  censured  the  Jews  with  the  reproach: 
"And  so  you  dared  to  commit  a  murder  in  your  temple?"  And 
when  they  refused  him  entrance  into  their  temple  he  said  to  them : 
"Am  I  not  purer  than  the  man  who  committed  murder  in  the 
temple  ?"  And  with  these  words  he  entered  the  temple.  The  death 
of  Jesus  gave  Bagoses  a  desired  occasion  to  oppress  the  Jews  seven 
years.  5 

I  Jiidaica  §  39  and  §103.  '  Gesch.  II.  2.  210. 

3  Ant.  xi.  7.  I,  ed,  Niese,  1892;  with  Josephus  agree  Diod.  xvii.  5.3  and  Strabo, 

4  Grk.  ^ayuiarji  ed.  Niese. 

s  Cf.  Sachau  Drei  aram.  Papyrusurkunden  aus  Elephantine,  1906^. 


44  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

Contrary  to  Stade'  who  says:  "Uber  die  Schicksale  der  judischen 
Gemeinde  in  dem  Jahrhundert,  welches  zwischen  Nehemias  Statt- 
hakerschaft  und  dem  Einbruch  Alexanders  in  das  persische  Reich 
verflossen  ist,  durch  ganz  Vorderasien  in  eine  neue  Entwicklung 
hingerissen  wurde,  erfahren  wir  aus  dem  Alten  Testamente  direct 
gar  nichts.  Und  auch  die  Gescliichtliche  Uberlieferung  anderer 
Volkcr  lasst  uns  fiir  diesen  Zeilraum  in  der  Geschichte  der 
Gemeinde  volhg  im  Stiche;"  and  contrary  to  Wellliausen^  who  says 
of  the  second  half  of  the  Persian  period :  "Uber  die  aussere  Geschichte 
dieser  Zeit  erfahren  wir  beinahe  nichts,"  we  have  found  historic 
traces  which  bear  upon  the  period  and  throw  rays  of  light  upon  it 
that  enable  us  to  understand  to  some  extent  the  conditions  of  the 
Jewish  community  in  the  days  of  Ochus. 

It  remains  yet,  after  a  look  at  what  Ochus  did  for  his  own  and 
succeeding  ages  and  what  sort  of  a  man  he  was,  to  examine  the 
Biblical  records  to  find  what  light  they  will  throw  upon  the  period 
under  consideration. 

E.   THE  WORK  AND  CHARACTER  OF  OCHUS 

Ochus  at  last  fell  a  prey  to  the  treachery  of  his  most  trusted  general 
Bagoas  shortly  after  the  battle  of  Chaeronaea,  338.  Bagoas,  fearing 
a  change  in  the  favor  of  the  king,  and  in  order  to  avenge  the  death 
of  the  Egyptian  Apis  through  Ochus,  caused  the  king  to  drink  poison 
and  placed  Arses,^  the  youngest  son  of  Ochus,  on  the  throne.  All 
his  other  sons  he  killed.  When  Arses  would  not  let  Bagoas  rule, 
he  too,  together  with  all  his  children,  was  slain,  and  a  friend  of  the 
eunuch,  Codomannus,  a  son  of  Arsanes,  and  a  great-grandson  of 
Darius  II,  was  placed  upon  the  throne.  He  in  turn  caused  Bagoas 
to  drink  the  poison  which  Bagoas  had  prepared  for  him,  because  he 
would  not  yield  to  the  wishes  of  the  eunuch.  The  same  year  that 
Codomannus  ascended  the  throne,  336,  Philip  II  was  assassinated 
and  followed  by  his  son  Alexander.  With  the  death  of  Ochus  and 
the  accession  of  Alexander  the  death-knell  of  the  Persian  empire 
was  sounded.  It  required  only  a  Uttle  more  time  for  the  inevitable 
to  take  place. 

'  Op.  cil.  194.  3  op.  cit.  192. 

3  Diod.  xvii.  5;  Plut.  Alex. 


HISTORY   OF   OCHUS   AND  HIS   REIGN  45 

Ochus  was  the  first  Persian  ruler  since  Darius  I  who  had  in  person 
energetically  conducted  a  great  expedition  and  restored  the  empire 
to  its  former  greatness.  It  was  a  great  pity  that  he  died  just  at  this 
critical  moment,'  for  far  more  than  in  the  days  of  Darius  I  did  the 
empire  center  in  the  personality  of  the  king.  The  last  years  of  his 
reign  show  a  prompt  management  and  a  powerful  rule.  He  was 
shrewd  enough  to  place  the  right  men  in  whom  he  could  have  con- 
fidence into  the  most  important  offices,  a  management  which  was 
not  always  found  in  oriental  courts.^  Plutarch  said  of  Ochus  that 
he  excelled  all  his  predecessors  in  cruelty  and  in  blood-thirstiness.^ 
^Q.^o';  oyfiorrjTL  koX  /xiaKpovia  'rrdvra<i  v'7rep6aX6/xevo<;.  GrotC*  calls 
him  "a  sanguinary  tyrant  who  shed  by  wholesale  the  blood  of 
his  family  and  courtiers."  He  was  energetic  and  determined,  but 
treacherous  and  cruel,  an  oriental  despot  of  an  extreme  type.  His 
cruelty  shows  itself  alike  in  his  court  before  and  after  his  accession, 
and  in  his  rule  over  the  empire  in  Sidon  and  in  Egypt.  No  means 
were  too  low  for  him  just  so  they  would  accomplish  his  ends.  Cheyne^ 
mentions  "the  insane  cruelties  of  that  degenerate  king,  Ochus." 
And  Noldeke^  says  "he  was,  it  appears,  one  of  those  great  despots 
who  can  raise  up  again  for  a  time  a  decayed  oriental  empire,  who 
shed  blood  without  scruple  and  are  not  nice  in  the  choice  of  means, 
but  who  in  the  actual  position  of  affairs  do  usually  contribute  to  the 
welfare  of  the  state  as  a  whole." 

1  Noldeke  op.  cit.  80.  *  Op.  cit.  xii,  chap.  xcii. 

2  Justi  op.  cit.  139.  s  E.  B.  III.  2,207. 

3  Artax.  30.  6  Op.  cit.  75. 


CHAPTER  III 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  SOURCES 

POSSIBLY  DATING  FROM  THE  REIGN  OF  OCHUS  OR 

REFLECTING  LIGHT  THEREON 

After  gathering  together  the  historical  data  bearing  on  the  period 
under  consideration  from  sources  and  authorities  outside  the  Old 
Testament,  both  in  a  general  and  also  in  a  more  particular  way, 
it  remains  for  us  to  search  the  sacred  records  to  see  what  additional 
and  confirming  information  they  will  yield  for  this  period.  It  is 
evident  that  we  have  it  to  do  not  with  traditional  views  but  with  a 
scientific  treatment  of  the  records.  Much  has  been  said  and  written 
on  this  subject  during  the  last  decade  or  two.  And  since  there  is  an 
element  of  uncertainty  about  the  history  of  the  period,  there  is  a  great 
diversity  of  opinions  among  scholars  concerning  the  Old  Testament 
sources  finding  a  historical  explanation  in  this  period.  There  are 
passages  also  which  fit  well  here  and  equally  so  into  one  or  another 
earher  or  later  period.  So,  for  instance,  there  is  a  similarity  between 
the  conditions  in  Palestine  during  the  Assyrian  and  the  late  Persian 
time,  and  again  between  this  time  and  that  under  Antiochus  IV, 
Epiphanes,  or  of  John  Hyrcanus.  There  is  no  direct  reference  in  the 
Old  Testament  to  Ochus  or  his  reign  by  name,  so  that  it  becomes  a 
matter  of  interpretation  through  a  comparison  of  the  thought  con- 
tents of  these  sources  with  what  is  known  of  the  external  history  of 
the  period. 

A.      THE   SOURCES 

Since  the  historical  method  of  study  found  its  way  into  the 
circles  of  Old  Testament  students,  the  true  meaning  and  message  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  sought  in  its  historic  background.  Every 
passage  is  studied  with  this  thought  in  mind.  Consequently  the 
correct  place  in  history  is  sought  for  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  following  passages  have  at  some  time  or  other  been  thought  by 
scholars  to  belong  in  this  period  wholly  or  in  part: 

I.  Passages  from  Isaiah:    (i)  23:  1-14;  (2)   19:  1-15;  (3)   14: 
28-32;  (4)  chaps.  24-27;  (5)  32:  9-14;  (6)  sy.  1-24;  (7)  chaps.  56-66. 

46 


OLD   TESTAMENT   SOURCES  47 

II.  Psalms  44,  74,  79,  and  83.     Also  89,  94,  132. 

III.  Passages  from  the  Minor  Prophets:  (i)  Joel,  chap.  3  [4]; 
(2)  Obadiah,  vss.  1-15;  (3)  Habakkuk  1:2 — 2:4,  in  part;  (4)  Zecha- 
riah,  chap.   14. 

IV.  Parts  of  Job. 

V.  The  Apocryphal  Books:  (i)  Judith;  (2)  Tobit. 
Some  of  these  have  been  shown  by  later  scholarship  to  belong  into 
other  periods,  so  that  they  can  be  passed  over  with  a  brief  notice. 
Some  are  generally  accepted  as  coming  from  this  time.  Others  are 
still  the  subject  of  discussion.  Still  others  are  of  such  a  nature  that 
their  date  can  probably  never  be  determined.  The  present  purpose 
is  to  examine  anew  each  section  and  group  together  the  arguments 
for  and  against  accepting  them  for  the  period  under  consideration. 

B.      THE  LITERATURE 

W.  R.  Smith,  Article  "Book  of  Psalms"  in  E.  Br.''  XX,  1875. 
Ihid.  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  1892^  207,  208, 
437-40.  Fr.  Baethgen  Die  Psalmen  iihersetzt  und  erkldrt,  Hand- 
kommentar  zum  A.  T.,  1892.  Juhus  Ley  Historische  Erkldrung 
des  zweiten  Jesaia  c.  40-66,  1893.  W.  H.  Kosters  Het  Herstel  van 
Israel  in  het  Perzische  Tijdvak,  1894,  Ger.  Transl.,  1895,  64-73. 
G.  Wildeboer  De  Letterkunde  des  Ouden  Verbonds  naar  de  Tijdsorde 
van  haar  Ontstaan,  1893,  1903%  Ger.  Transl.,  1895.  T-  •^-  Cheyne 
Introduction  to  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  1895.  K.  Budde,  Review  of 
Cheyne's  Introduction  in  Th.  L.  Z.,  1896,  286,  287.  W.  H.  Kosters 
"Deutero-  en  Trito-Jesaja"  in  Th.  Tijdschr.,  1896,  577-623.  S.  R. 
Driver  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  O.  T.,  1891,  1897*^.  H. 
Gressmann  Ueher  die  in  Jesaia  c.  56-66  vorausgesetzten  Verhdltnisse, 
1898.  J.  Skinner,  "Isaiah"  in  Camb.  Bib.,  i,  898.  T.  K.  Cheyne 
Jewish  Religious  Life  after  the  Exile,  1898,  158-72.  E.  Littmann 
Ueber  die  Abfassungszeit  des  Trito-Jesaja,  1899.  B.  Duhm  Die 
Psalmen  erkldrt,  K.  H.  C.  A.  T.,  1899.  K.  Marti  Das  Buch  Jesaja, 
K.  H.  C.  A.  T.,  1900.  B.  Duhm  Das  Buch  Jesaja  iibersetzt  und 
erkldrt,  H.  K.  A.  T.,  1892,  1901'.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  "The  Book  of 
Isaiah,"  in  E.  B.  II,  1901.  W.  R.  Smith  and  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Article 
"  Psalms"  in  E.  B.  Ill,  1902,  §§i8,  23,  28.  W.  Nowack  Die  Kleinen 
Propheten  iibersetzt  und  erkldrt,  H.  K.  A.  T.,  1897,  19033.     K.  Marti 


48  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

Das  Dodekapropheton,  in  K.  H.  C.  A.  T.,  1904.  C.  von  Orelli 
Der  Prophet  Jesaja  ausgelegi,  1887,  19043.  C.  H.  Comill  Ein- 
leitung  in  die  Bikher  des  A.  T.,  1891,  19055.  G.  Holscher  Paldstina 
in  der  Persischen  und  Hellenistischen  Zeit,  1903,  46-50.  H.  Guthe, 
Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  1904,  289-301.  E.  Schurer  Geschichte 
des  Judischen  Volkes  iin  Zeitaller  Jesu  Christi,  1902^.  R.  Kittel, 
Article  "Psalmcn"  in  Realenc.  fUr  Protestantische  Theologie  und 
Kirche,  1905.  Bd.  16. 

C.      EXAMINATION   OF  THE   SOURCES 

I.  Passages  from  Isaiah — (i)  Isa.  23: 1-14  [15-18].  IS  IJ5TD13  The 
Oracle  concerning  Sidon,  one  of  the  ten  oracles  forming  the  frame- 
work of  Isa.,  chaps.  13-27.  That  vss.  15-18,  the  promised  restoration 
of  T)Te,  do  not  form  a  part  of  the  original  section  but  are  a  later 
addition,  was  pointed  out  already  by  Ewald,  who  is  followed  by  most 
later  writers.  These  verses  stand  in  strong  contrast  with  vss.  1-14. 
They  are  not  like  vss.  1-14,  poetry,  but  prose  with  a  quotation  from 
a  song  in  vs.  16.  Language,  imagery,  and  subject  matter  are  different 
in  the  two  parts.  Ewald  and  Cheyne  place  the  added  verses  in  the 
beginning  of  the  Persian  period.'  Duhm^  places  them  after  the 
fall  of  Tyre  under  Alexander  the  Great  in  332,  and  Marti^  in  the 
second  century  by  a  writer  who  recognized  in  vss.  1-14  the  fulfilment 
of  a  prophecy  concerning  the  fall  of  Tyre  in  332,  and  who  saw  the 
rise  of  Tyre  under  the  Seleucides.  The  promise  of  a  restoration 
of  Tyre,  after  seventy  years,  is  modeled  after  Jer.  25:  9-11,  and  29:  10, 
meaning  after  a  change  of  dynasty  as  in  case  of  the  Pharaoh  of  Joseph, 
Ex.  1:8.  Tyre  was  really  forgotten  by  reason  of  the  prosperity  of 
Carthage  and  the  rise  of  its  rival,  Alexandria.  Not  till  the  time  of 
the  Seleucides  did  it  rise  again,  yet  long  before  the  seventy  years 
after  the  conquests.^  Further  evidence  of  the  rise  of  Tyre  is  also 
found  in  2^ch.  9:3,  "And  Tyre  did  build  herself  a  stronghold,  and 
hcai)cd  up  silver  as  the  dust,  and  fine  gold  as  the  mire  of  the  streets." 

The  date  of  vss.  1-14  has  long  perplexed  the  critics.  It  is  evident 
that  the  text  has  sufTered  corruption  in  order  to  adapt  the  poem 

»  So  also  Eichhorn,  Vatkc,  Konig. 

»  Das  Buch  Jes.  iiberseizt  u.  erhldrt,  ad.  loc. 

3  Das  Buch  Jesaja,  ad.  loc. 

4  Cf.  Schurer  Cesch.  des  Jud.  Volkes  II.  74. 


OLD  TESTAMENT   SOURCES  49 

to  another  than  its  original  purpose.  The  acceptance  of  the  text  as 
it  is,  "li  Tyre,  and  Q'^'niCi)  Chaldaeans,  in  vss.  i  and  12,  led  W.  R. 
Smith'  to  consider  the  passage  as  a  prophecy  of  Isaiah  against  Tyre 
shortly  before  Sennacherib's  invasion  in  701,  pointing  to  the  punish- 
ment recently  inflicted  upon  Chaldaea  by  the  Assyrians  in  710-709 
or  in  701.  But  even  by  accepting  vs.  13  as  it  stands,  this  is  hardly 
possible,  for  it  describes  a  severer  disaster  than  that  which  befell 
Babylon  through  Assyria  at  that  time.  And,  besides,  Tyre  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  inscriptions  among  the  cities  besieged  by  Senna- 
cherib. On  the  other  hand,  vs.  13,  because  of  its  meaninglessness, 
is  rejected  by  Cheyne^  from  belonging  to  the  original  poem.  Duhm 
and  Marti  consider  the  larger  portion  of  it  as  a  gloss  and  emend  the 
remainder. 

The  introduction  of  D'''n^3  was  thought  to  be  too  abrupt. 
Ewald  proposed  to  change  it  to  D'^^^DS  Canaanites.  His  con- 
jecture was  adopted  by  Schrader,^  Cheyne,  Orelh,  Dehtzsch,  and 
viewed  favorably  by  Dillman  and  Driver. ^  Cheyne  afterward 
reverted  to  D'''ni2;3  on  Assyriological  grounds.  If  the  emendation 
would  stand,  then  the  verse  would  refer  simply  to  the  threatening 
fate  of  Phoenicia,  and  the  whole  section  could  be  considered  as  an 
Isaianic  prophecy  and  could  plausibly  be  assigned  to  the  period  of 
the  five-year  siege  of  Tyre  by  Shalmaneser  IV  between  727  and  723 
related  by  Josephus.s  But  the  text  is  as  difficult  with  W^^TJp 
as  with  D'^'n\p|).  What  could  be  the  significance  of  "jll  behold} 
Certainly  the  devastation  of  Canaan  was  nothing  new.  Ewald  also 
noticed  the  absence  of  the  loftiness,  the  splendor,  and  the  brevity  of 
Isaiah,  and  consequently  assigned  the  verses  to  a  younger  disciple 
of  Isaiah.  Others  refer  all  of  chap.  23  to  the  age  if  not  to  the  author- 
ship of  Jeremiah.*^  Stade^  places  the  entire  chapter  in  the  age  of 
Alexander  the  Great. 

E.  Meyer,  followed  by  Duhm  and  Marti,  changes  D'^'llflS  of 
vs.  13  to  D''^ri3  Cyprians,  and  refers  to  vs.  12  for  the  reason.     The 

I  The  Prophets  oj  Israel  333.  ^  Introd.  to  the  Bh.  oj  Isa.  141. 

3K.  A.  r.2  409  f. 

A  Introd.  to  the  Literature  oj  the  O.  Tfi  219. 

s  Ant.  ix.  14.2.;  so  Ewald,  Schrader,  Kuenen,  Dillman,  Orelli,  Cheyne,  Driver. 

6  Hitzig,  Bleek.  ^  Gesch.  des  Volkes  Isr.  II.  208. 


50  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

emendation  is  not  an  easy  one  but  probably  correct.  With  a  slight 
change  the  verse  then  reads :  TibB'zb  M'^TD  l^^CH  D^FlS  ynx  -jH 
Behold  the  land  of  the  Kittim  he  has  laid  waste,  to  a  heap  of  ruins  he 
made  it  (Marti),  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  a  gloss  {vide  supra).  One 
more  emendation,  first  proposed  by  Duhm  and  adopted  by  Marti 
and  Cornill,  and  it  seems  to  me  we  have  the  original  meaning  of 
the  passage.  This  is  "I'S  to  "12  ("liTlS)  Sidon  in  vss.  i  and 
8.  This  is  an  easy  emendation  and  is  altogether  probable  since  in 
vss.  2,  4,  12  Sidon  is  certainly  meant.  This  gives  unity  and  meaning 
to  the  section,  finding  its  full  explanation  in  the  historic  situation 
of  the  destruction  of  Sidon  by  Ochus  in  348,  into  which  history  it 
fits  perfectly  {vide  supra).  Then  we  have  not  a  prophecy  but  an 
elegy  composed  upon  the  destruction  of  Sidon.  It  is  easy  to  see  how 
a  later  writer,  the  one  who  added  vss.  15-18,  would  adapt  the  elegy 
to  a  prophecy  against  Tyre,  He  also  changed  "pcl  to  "i22  in  vss. 
I  and  8,  and  so  made  out  of  the  elegy  upon  Sidon  a  IS  5<iS'J  burden 
of  Tyre.  Vs.  5  is  a  prosaic  gloss  whose  contents  has  no  connection 
with  the  poem.'  That  Tyre  was  not  meant  originally  is  clear  from 
the  fact  that  it  was  thrice  besieged,  five  years  under  Shalmaneser- 
Sargon,  again  under  Asarhaddon-Assur-banipal,  and  thirteen  years  by 
Nebuchadrezzar,  but  not  conquered  till  under  Alexander  in  332. 
On  the  other  hand  we  know  that  Sidon  was  the  first  city  of  Phoenicia 
in  the  Persian  period.^  At  no  time  during  the  life  of  Isaiah  was 
it  destroyed. 3  The  translation  of  "122  as  "Phoenicia"  is  rendered 
impossible  by  vs.  12.''  Likewise  the  view  of  Cheyne,  Guthe,  and 
Kittel,  that  the  elegy  dates  from  Isaiah  as  a  prophecy  against  Tyre, 
worked  over  by  a  later  hand,  must  be  abandoned.  The  passage 
is  not  a  prophecy  and  its  diction  and  ideas  are  too  foreign  to  those  of 
Isaiah  (Duhm),  Cheyne^  points  out  Isaianic  ideas  and  phraseology 
and  then  adds  what  seem  to  him  non-Isaianic  features,  which,  how- 
ever, seem  to  predominate.  The  passage  may  be  accepted  without 
hesitancy  as  an  elegy  upon  the  destruction  of  Sidon  (Marti)  in  348, 
and  may  confidently  be  received  as  a  reliable  source  for  the  reign 
of  Ochus. 

«  Duhm,  Cheyne,  Marti.  '  Herodotus  vii,  98;  viii.  67. 

3  Cf.  Pietschmann  Gesch.  der  Phoenizier  302-6;  M.tyex  Cesch.  des  AUerlums  I.  595. 

4  Guthe  in  Kautzsch  Bibel'.  s  Op.  cit.  143. 


OLD  TESTAMENT   SOURCES  5 1 

(2)  Isa.  19:1-15  [16-25].  O'!'^^''?  t^iS'J  The  Oracle  concerning 
Egypt,  another  of  the  ten  oracles  of  Isa.,  chaps.  13-27.  As  in  chap.  23, 
so  we  have  here  an  original  section,  vss.  1-15,  and  a  later  addition, 
vss.  16-25.  Tradition  indeed  accepted  the  entire  chapter  as  Isaianic. 
Scholars  long  accepted  this  view  and  sought  to  find  a  place  in  history 
for  the  chapter.  Ewald'  accepted  the  chapter  as  Isaianic  but  noticed 
difficulties  in  the  differences.  He  described  it  as  Isaiah's  last  and 
noblest  "testament  to  posterity,"  probably  because  of  the  grand 
cathohcity  of  the  picture  with  which  the  chapter  closes,  namely  that 
both  Assyria,  the  life-long  oppressor  of  Judah,  and  Egypt  should  turn 
to  Jahwe  and  be  on  an  equality  with  Israel  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Ewald  thinks  the  chapter  consistent  with  the  period  after  701,  after 
Egypt  was  defeated  by  Sennacherib.^  Driver  considers  it  a  plausible 
conjecture  to  place  it  in  connection  with  the  defeat  of  Egypt  by 
Sargon  at  Raphia  in  720.^ 

That  vss.  16-25  ^o  ^ot  form  a  part  of  the  original  section,  vss. 
I -1 5,  was  shown  already  by  Hitzig,  who  thought  them  to  come  from 
the  hand  of  Onias  in  his  own  interest,  at  the  time  of  the  founding 
of  the  Onias  temple  in  LeontopoHs,  ca.  160  b.  c,  according  to  Jo- 
sephus."  The  alHance  of  Syria,  Israel,  and  Egypt  the  writer  hoped 
to  be  realized  through  the  successes  of  Judas  Maccabaeus.  Hitzig 
later  considered  vss.  21-25  ^^  purely  imaginative.  His  earher  view 
was  adopted  by  Duhm.  The  section  cannot  be  Isaianic,  for  vs.  16 
would  be  a  direct  denial  of  his  predictions,  and  at  the  time  these 
verses  were  written  Judah  must  have  had  reason  for  hoping  to  become 
a  menace  to  Egypt  and  to  stand  alongside  with  it  and  Syria.  The 
five  cities  speaking  the  language  of  Canaan,  among  them  Leontopohs, 
the  altar  and  the  pillar,  the  hope  that  Egypt  will  turn  to  Jahwe,  all 
indicate  that  this  prophecy  dates  from  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. Duhm  sees  in  the  friendship  which  shall  arise  between  Egypt 
and  Syria,  and  which  shall  include  Judah,  the  marriage  of  Alexander 
Balas  with  the  daughter  of  Ptolemy  Philometer  at  which  Jonathan 
clothed  in  purple  was  present  (I  Mac.  10:  51-56).  The  glorification 
of  the  temple  of  Leontopolis  and  of  the  Jewish  generals  indicates 

I  Hist,  of  Isr.  II.  267  f.  2  So  also  Stade,  Dillman,  Kuenen. 

3  Guthe  in  Kautzsch  Bibel  places  it  at  715. 

4  Ant.  xiii.  3.  i. 


52  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

that  the  author  was  an  Egyptian  Jew,  Hence  it  is  that  there  is  no 
reference  to  the  return  of  the  Diaspora  and  to  the  hostility  toward 
the  gentiles.  That  the  history  of  the  time  is  put  into  the  form  of 
prediction  is  in  harmony  with  the  Hterary  style  of  the  time.  Marti 
agrees  with  Duhm  that  the  time  of  the  founding  of  the  Onias  temple, 
1 60  B.  c,  affords  the  best  historic  explanation  of  these  verses.  He 
regards  vss.  16-25  ^^  a  unity,  intended  to  limit  or  to  cancel  the  im- 
pression of  vss.  1-15  for  Egyptian  readers,  and  at  the  same  time 
as  a  message  from  the  Egyptian  Jews  to  the  Egyptians  to  turn  to 
Jahwe  and  to  rejoice  over  the  blessings  of  the  Jewish  religion  in  the 
triple  alliance  with  Judah   and   Syria. 

Cheyne  is  certain  that  vss.  16-25  ^^^  "^^  Isaianic,  for  (a)  the 
prophecy,  vss.  1-15,  is  from  a  literary  point  of  view  complete  without 
an  appendix,  (b)  The  tone  of  these  verses  is  entirely  different  from 
the  first  part.  There  is  a  strong  contrast  between  the  two  parts. 
The  first  is  the  sternest  threatening,  the  second  has  a  more  sym- 
pathetic tone  toward  Egypt  than  is  found  in  any  other  part  of  the 
Old  Testament,  even  a  conversion  of  Egypt  to  the  true  God.  (c) 
To  a  Jew  of  Isaiah's  time  the  conversion  of  Assyria,  not  of  Egypt, 
was  of  primary  interest.  The  conversion  of  the  less  dangerous 
neighbor  is  not  a  conceivable  idea  of  Isaiah,  (d)  The  circumstantial 
description  in  vss.  18-25  (^ss.  16  and  17  Hnk  the  original  prophecy 
with  the  addition)  is  contrary  to  the  prophetic  genius  of  Isaiah. 
(e)  There  are  no  stylistic  indications  of  Isaiah.  The  style  is  prosaic. 
The  Isaianic  expressions  only  indicate  that  the  writer  was  acquainted 
with  Isaiah.'  But  Cheyne,  and  with  him  Cornill,  thinks  it  impossible 
that  vss.  16-25  c^^  come  from  so  late  a  date  as  160,  since  such  an 
addition  could  not  have  been  accepted  into  the  text  of  the  Palestinian 
synagogue  so  late.  This  objection  is,  however,  not  insurmountable 
since  the  canon  was  not  closed  till  after  that  time.  While  the  pro- 
phetic collection  already  existed  pretty  much  in  its  present  form 
about  200  B.  c,  still  the  possibility  of  much  later  additions  is  not 
ruled  out.'  The  group  of  prophecies,  Isa.,  chaps.  13-27,  can  hardly 
have  been  collected  before  the  close  of  the  second  century  b.  c.^ 

>  Op.  cit.  99-101. 

'  K.  Budde  Art.  "Canon"  in  E.  B.  I.  §39  and  n.  i. 

3  Marti  op.  cit.  p.  xvi. 


» 


OLD  TESTAMENT   SOURCES  53 

Cheyne  thinks  the  author  considered  HlTp  D^'pli^  the  cruel 
lord,  as  Ochus,  or  with  LXX  Kvpiwv  a-KXrjpcov  hard  lords,  as 
Ochus  and  the  other  Persian  kings  who  conquered  Egypt,  namely 
Cambyses  and  Xerxes.  The  passage  can  be  explained  only  by  the 
history  of  the  Greek  period  under  the  first  four  Ptolemies.  When  the 
empire  of  Alexander  was  divided,  Egypt  fell  to  Ptolemy  Lagi  who 
in  320  added  to  it  Phoenicia  and  Coelo-Syria  with  the  territory  of 
Judah.  Antigonus  received  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.  Southern 
Syria  remained  disputed  ground.  The  people  of  Judah  suffered 
harsh  treatment  from  Ptolemy.  Many  captives  from  Judah  and 
Samaria  were  carried  away  to  Egypt. ^  Many  Jews  also  went  of 
their  own  accord,  invited  by  the  goodly  country  and  the  liberality 
of  Ptolemy  toward  them  in  Alexandria.  So  far  the  verses  contain 
recent  history.  Now  follows  a  look  into  the  future.  Egypt  shall 
turn  to  Jahwe.  A  highway  from  Egypt  to  Syria  shall  be  opened. 
Israel  shall  be  the  link  between  the  Seleucides  and  the  Ptolemies. 
All  shall  serve  Jahwe  and  from  the  three  allied  peoples  spiritual  light 
will  radiate.  Hence  he  concludes  that  the  addition  is  the  work  of 
an  Egyptian  Jew  ca.  275.  Cornill^  considers  it  inconceivable  that 
the  verses  could  date  from  an  earlier  time  than  the  settling  of  Jews 
in  Egypt  by  Ptolemy  Lagi,  323-285. 

From  the  examination  of  vss.  16-25  we  may  confidently  affirm 
that  they  are  not  Isaianic  and  that  they  are  from  a  later  writer  than 
vss.  1-15.  It  remains  yet  to  examine  vss.  1-15  to  find  as  nearly  as 
possible  their  origin  and  date.  While  Hitzig  dated  vss.  16-25  ^^  ^^^ 
he  held  firmly  to  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  vss.  1-15.  Eichhorn 
first  denied  the  authorship  of  Isaiah.  The  non-Isaianic  authorship 
is  now  held  by  Duhm,  Smend,  Kittel,  Cornill,  and  Marti.  But  for 
what  reason?  First  let  us  ascertain  whether  vss.  1-15  are  a  unity. 
As  in  chapter  23  so  we  have  here  three  strophes,  vss.  1-4,  5-10,  and 
11-15,  and  not  of  regular  formation.  Neither  is  each  strophe  a 
unit  idea.  The  first  is  a  unity:  Jahwe  stirs  up  civil  war  in  Egypt, 
robs  the  Egyptians  of  all  reason  and  delivers  them  into  the  power  of 
a  severe  and  cruel  foreigner.  The  next  two  strophes,  on  the  other 
hand,  form  a  unit  idea  together:  vss.  5-10,  the  drying  up  of  the  Nile 
and  the  woe  of  fishermen  and  weavers,  and  vss.  1 1-15,  the  insufficiency 

I  Jos.  Anl.  xii.  i.  »  Einl.  in  das  A.  T.  171. 


54  ARTAXERXES   III  OCHDS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

and  helplessness  of  the  Egyptian  wisdom.  Cheyne  therefore  sepa- 
rates vss.  5-10  as  obstructing  the  connection,  and  considers  them 
from  a  later  hand.'  The  evidence,  however,  is  not  convincing  since 
the  connection  between  the  first  and  third  strophe  is  scarcely  any 
closer.^     We  may  therefore  accept  the  entire  section  as  a  unit. 

That  the  section  cannot  come  from  Isaiah  is  evident  (a)  from  a 
lack  of  any  historic  connection  with  Judah,  any  political  motive  for 
the  threats  uttered,  for  the  older  prophets  always  connected  their 
messages  with  some  contemporary  event  in  history,  (b)  Many 
ideas  are  not  Isaianic:  The  ride  of  Jahwe  on  a  swift  cloud  to  Egypt, 
vs.  I,  is  almost  unique  in  prophecy.  The  theoretically  estabUshed 
monotheism  and  the  comparison  of  the  Jewish  religious  teaching 
with  the  Egyptian  wisdom,  vss.  3  and  12,  is  unhke  Isaiah.  The 
plan  of  Jahwe  is  already  a  subject  of  learned  wisdom,  vs.  12  (Marti). 
Would  Isaiah  have  spoken  of  D']"'22p  n^l")  the  spirit  of  Egypt,  vs.  3, 
and  have  shown  the  anxiety  for  the  fishermen  and  weavers  of  Egypt, 
vss.  5-10,  a  calamity  in  no  way  political  (Duhm)?  (c)  The  arrangement 
and  style  is  not  Isaianic.  Would  Isaiah  have  used  D'^'^^p  six  times 
in  the  first  five  hnes  ?  Cheyne^  at  first  pronounced  the  section  the 
work  of  a  disciple  of  Isaiah  on  the  basis  of  Isaiah's  notes.  Then  he 
concluded  that  the  whole  section  is  later  than  Isaiah  but  still  held 
to  the  Isaianic  basis,  and  thought  the  niflp  Cjli^  none  other  than 
Sargon  who  defeated  the  Egyptians  at  Raphia  in  720.  Later  he 
asserts  "I  can  now  find  no  sure  traces  of  an  Isaianic  substratum." 

That  Isaiah  cannot  have  been  the  author  of  vss.  1-15  is  certainly 
evident.  Into  what  other  period  then  does  the  section  belong? 
Cheyne-'  thinks  of  Cambyses  who  conquered  Psammetich  III  in 
525,  and  of  Xerxes  who  reconquered  Egypt.  Either  one  can  rightly 
be  called  n'JJ|D  D-wiyi .  The  section  belongs  in  "the  long  Persian 
period,  but  nothing  compels  us  to  descend  as  far  as  Artaxerxes 
Ochus."  Vss.  5-10  are  not  later  than  485.  Judging  from  the 
cruelty  of  Ochus  in  Phoenicia  and  Judea,  he  thinks  it  difficult  to 
see  how  a  Jew  could  have  written  so  coldly  and  so  indififercntly  of 
the  final  campaign  against  Egypt.  Duhm,  on  the  other  hand,  and 
with  him  Marti  and  Cornill,  rightly  think  of  Artaxerxes  III,  Ochus, 

'  op.  cit.  no,  HI.  3  Op.  cit.  113,  114. 

»  Marti  op.  cit.  155.  4  Op.  cit.  118,  119. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  SOURCES  55 

who  conquered  Nectanebus  II  in  343  {vide  supra).  Into  this  period 
the  separate  allusions  fit  correctly.  Civil  strife  and  sudden  change 
of  dynasties,  vs.  2,  discord  in  military  operations,  revolts  and  con- 
fusion, all  were  common  in  those  days.  The  epithet  riTDp  0"'^^? 
fits  Ochus  better  than  anyone  else  in  the  history  of  Persia  (vide 
supra,  pp.  44,  45).  The  section  was  probably  written  in  Egypt 
sometime  between  the  destruction  of  Sidon  in  348  and  the  recon- 
quest  of  Egypt,  343,  as  "an  elegy  upon  the  punishment  of  Egypt 
through  Ochus"  (Marti),  and  may  be  accepted  as  another  rehable 
source  for  the  history  of  the  reign  of  Ochus. 

(3)  Isa.  14:28-32,  t^'Jpbs  iX^'D  The  Oracle  concerning  Philistia. 
This  prophecy  of  four  strophes  of  four  lines  each  bears  the  heading, 
"In  the  year  of  the  death  of  king  Ahaz'  was  this  Oracle."  Were 
this  reliable,  then  both  authorship  and  date  would  be  fixed,  namely 
that  we  have  a  prophecy  from  Isaiah  in  the  year  721.  But  the  late 
l^iD^n  points  to  the  redactor  of  Isa.,  chaps.  13-27,  which  contains 
the  ten  oracles  concerning  foreign  nations.  To  substitute  l^'nn  the 
word  for  l^iS^ll ,  following  prf^a  of  the  LXX  (Cheyne)  does  not 
stand,  for  prjyia  is  found  for  J^iS^fl  also  in  15:1  and  17:1  where 
^y^T\  could  not  stand.  That  the  heading  cannot  be  correct  as  it 
now  reads  is  admitted  even  by  those  who  claim  the  Isaianic  author- 
ship of  the  prophecy. 

Two  dates  within  the  time  of  Isaiah  were  thought  of  as  forming 
a  reasonable  background  for  the  prophecy.  One  of  these  is  the  year 
720,  where  the  prophecy  would  refer  to  the  disturbances  in  Syria 
and  Palestine,  which  followed  the  defeat  of  Sargon  by  the  Elamites, 
the  alhes  of  Merodach  Baladan,  in  which  Assyria  lost  its  most  prized 
possession,  Babylon.^  This  is  an  attempt  to  bring  the  event  as  near 
as  possible  into  harmony  with  the  heading.  The  inference  rests 
upon  the  Babylonian  chronicle,^  The  inscriptions  of  Sargon  are 
silent  on  this  point.  The  other  date  is  705, ^  the  year  of  Sargon's 
death.  In  this  case  ^TO  a  serpent,  vs.  29,  would  refer  to  Sargon,  and 
r|B'i3'p  rp^,  a  fiery  flying  serpent,  to  Sennacherib.     The  Philistines 

'  733-721. 

'  Cheyne  op.  cit.  80,  81;  cf.  Winckler  Uniersuchungen  135-137- 

3  B,  col.  I,  11.  33-35. 

4  Guthe  Kautzsch  Bibel  wavers  between  this  date  and  711. 


56  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

might  naturally  rejoice  over  the  death  of  Sargon,  who  had  defeated 
Hanno  of  Gaza  at  Raphia  in  720,  and  captured  Ashdod  in  711.  That 
Sennacherib  severely  punished  the  Philistines  is  clear  from  his  in- 
scriptions.' Others  have  thought  of  the  time  of  Tiglath-Pileser  III 
(745-727)  and  Shalmaneser  IV  (726-722),^  and  still  others  thought 
the  time  of  Shalmaneser  and  Sargon  most  suited  to  the  prophecy. 
Thus  far  all  points  to  Isaiah  as  the  author  of  the  prophecy.  Of  all 
the  dates  mentioned  705  seems  the  most  likely  to  be  the  correct  one. 
The  inviolabihty  of  Zion,  vs.  32,  certainly  is  an  Isaianic  idea.  So 
also  is  the  sympathy  for  the  poor,  \'s.  30,  so  that  the  prophecy  finds 
a  reasonable  explanation  in  the  Assyrian  period  and  may  plausibly 
be  claimed  for  Isaiah. 

But  is  there  not  another  period  in  which  the  prophecy  finds  even 
a  more  perfect  explanation  ?  Duhm  thinks  of  the  period  after  the 
battle  of  Issos,  333,  and  before  the  capture  of  Tyre  and  Gaza  by 
Alexander  the  Great,  as  the  situation  best  explaining  the  prophecy, 
and  refers  to  the  suffering  of  the  Philistines  during  the  reign  of  the 
last  Persian  kings,  in  their  conflict  with  Egypt,  as  sufficient  ground 
for  rejoicing  over  the  downfall  of  Persia.  The  phrase  i^^  "^^D^, 
the  poor  of  his  people,  is  decidedly  postexilic  in  appearance.  Marti 
agrees  with  Duhm  and  thinks  the  allusion  points  to  the  reign  of 
Ochus  as  the  cause  of  the  hatred  against  the  Persians  on  part  of  the 
Philistines.  Cheyne  also  holds  this  view  now.^  But  did  Philistia 
suffer  such  severe  violence  at  the  hand  of  the  Persians  ?  And,  if  so, 
did  not,  as  we  have  seen  before,  Judah  suffer  mistreatment  at  that 
time  so  that  Zion  was  not  any  more  a  place  of  refuge  for  the  afflicted  ? 
Yet  the  predominating  evidence  points  toward  this  time.  If  accepted, 
then  the  prophecy  throws  confirming  light  upon  the  historic  evidence 
of  the  cruelty  of  Ochus  in  his  western  campaigns. 

(4)    Isa.,  chaps.  24-27,  a  singular  production  without  any  head- 
ing, which  later  critics  agree  in  assigning  to  another  age  than  Isaiah's. 
Already  Ewald**  claimed  only  a  part  of  it  for  Isaiah,  namely  26:6-8, 
chaps.  10  and  11,  27:9-13,  as  Isaianic.    Delitzsch,^  in  the  first  three 

'  Driver  Life  and  Times  oj  Isa.  67  f. 

'  So  W.  R.  Smith  The  Proph.  oj  Isr.  319,  and  Kucnen  and  Driver. 

3  Art.   "Isaiah"   in   E.   B.   II.   2,197. 

4  Die  Lehre  der  Bibel  von  Gott  III.  444. 

J  1866  f.     For  his  latest  view  vide  infra,   p.  58. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   SOURCES  57 

editions  of  his  commentary,  says  that  it  is  arbitrary  to  deny  the  author- 
ship of  Isaiah  of  an  entire  section  fundamentally,  and  in  a  thousand 
details  Isaianic,  simply  because  of  its  peculiarities.  J.  Bredencamp^ 
regards  the  main  portion  Isaianic  with  some  lyrical  parts  as  later 
insertions.  As  late  as  1891  W.  E.  Barnes  thought  it  necessary  to 
publish  a  learned  "  Examination  of  the  Objections  brought  against 
the  Genuineness  of  Isa.,  chaps.  24-27."  Two  years  later  C.  H.  H. 
Wright^  found  "nothing  really  opposed  to  the  Isaianic  authorship." 

Among  the  reasons  for  rejecting  the  Isaianic  authorship  the  fol- 
lowing may  be  mentioned  as  conclusive:^  (a)  The  section  lacks  a 
suitable  historical  occasion  in  Isaiah's  time.  There  is  no  period  in 
the  Ass^Tian  history  into  which  it  really  fits  well.  The  situation 
is  certainly  not  that  of  any  of  the  acknowledged  prophecies  of  Isaiah. 

(b)  The  social  and  rehgious  circumstances  described  are  those  of  a 
time  in  which  priests  constitute  the  most  important  class,  24:2, 
pointing  to  the  time  after  the  priestly  law-book  had  become  canonical. 

(c)  The  ideas  and  ideals  are  not  those  of  Isaiah.  In  Isaiah  the 
remnant  which  escapes  is  saved  in  Judah  or  Jerusalem,  4:3;  here 
the  voices  of  the  redeemed  are  first  heard  from  distant  quarters  of 
the  earth,  24: 14-16.'*  The  extension  of  religious  privileges  to  all 
peoples,  25:6,  is  characteristic  of  Deutero-Isaiah  and  later  times. 
The  hope  of  the  resurrection  of  individual  Israelites,  26:19,  is  cer- 
tainly not  Isaianic.  (d)  The  linguistic  and  stylistic  representation 
is  in  many  respects  unhke  that  of  Isaiah.  It  is  more  artificial  and 
characterized  by  many  unusual  expressions.  The  many  similarities 
can  easily  be  accounted  for  by  the  writer's  familiarity  with  and 
imitation  of  Isaiah.  "One  cannot  think  of  a  greater  contrast  than 
these  chapters  and  the  undoubted  authentic  speeches  of  Isaiah. "5 
Not  only  do  these  arguments  point  to  a  post-Isaianic  period,  but  as 
well  to  a  postexilic  time.  It  only  remains  to  determine  how  far  down 
we  are  to  go. 

The  question  of  the  literary  unity  must  first  be  considered  before 
that  of  authorship  can  be  settled.  Already  Ewald  rightly  recog- 
nized that  25:1-5  breaks  the  connection  between  24:23  and  25:6. 

I  Commentar,  1886,  1887,  ad.  he. 

'  Art.  "Isaiah"  in  Smith's  B.  D.  18932.  4  Driver  Introd.  221. 

3  Cf.  Cheyne  op.  oil.  147-54.  s  Cornill  op.  cit.  173. 


58  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

Then  the  problem  was  left  to  rest  for  a  long  time,  until  Duhm  rightly 
continued  in  the  same  direction  and  reached  the  conclusion  that 
24:1-23,  25:6-8,  26:20-21,  27:1,  12-13,  form  an  apocalypse  which 
constitutes  the  groundwork  of  chaps.  24-27.  This  apocalypse  describes 
the  approaching  of  the  desolation  of  a  great  world-empire  by  war, 
closing  with  the  judgment  of  Jahwe  over  angels  and  kings.  Upon  this 
follows  the  descent  of  Jahwe  upon  Zion  in  visible  glory  where  the 
divine  throne  is  set  up  in  the  holy  city.  Judah  shall  hide  itself  till  the 
storm  has  destroyed  the  three  world-powers,  27:1,  after  which  the 
Syrian  and  Egyptian  diaspora  will  join  her.  The  remaining  portions 
he  considers  as  late  accretions  and  of  a  lyrical  nature.  Chap,  25, 
vss.  1-5,  is  a  song  in  commemoration  of  the  destruction  of  a  strong 
citadel  on  account  of  which  a  city  of  strong  people  will  honor  and 
fear  God;  25:9-11,  an  isolated  taunting  song  of  Moab;  26: 1-19,  with 
25:12,  a  unique  artistic  poem;  and  27: 2-5,  a  Httle  song.  Concerning 
the  hortatory  verses,  27:7-11,  he  has  some  hesitancy.  Cheyne  and 
Cornill  agree  with  Duhm  in  this  analysis.  So  also  does  Marti,  who 
estabhshes  more  definitely  27:7-11  as  an  accretion. 

Hence  we  have  not  a  single  work  written  in  twelve  strophes  of  the 
same  hexameter  movement  as  C.  A.  Briggs'  states,  but  "a  mosaic  of 
passages  in  different  styles  by  several  writers,"*  as  Duhm  has  con- 
clusively shown.  A  further  division  was  attempted  by  J.  Boehmer^ 
into  two  different  groups,  namely,  24:1-23;  25:6-8  and  26:9-21; 
27:1,  12,13.  This,  however,  increases  the  difficulty  of  finding  a 
suitable  situation,  especially  for  the  second  group,  and  affords  no 
advantage.  From  what  has  been  said  it  is  clear  that  chaps.  24-27 
are  not  Isaianic  and  that  they  are  not  a  unity.  It  remains  to  find  a 
later  period  of  history  for  a  suitable  background,  both  for  the  ground- 
work and  for  the  accretions. 

At  least  three  postexihc  periods  were  thought  of  before  a  literary 
analysis  was  worked  out.  (a)  The  early  Persian  period.  So  Ewald, 
Delitzsch,*  and  Dillmann,  1890.  Driver  formerly  claimed  the 
Isaianic  authorshij),  but  now  places  the  chapters  between  536  and 
440.     Oort5  ])leads  for  a  date  in  the  fifth  century  but  before  the 

'  Messianic  Prophecies  295. 

'  Cheyne  op.  cii.  295.  4  M essianische  Weissagungen,  1890,  143  f. 

3  1897.  5  Theol.  Tijdschr.,  1886,  186-94. 


1 


OLD   TESTAMENT   SOURCES  59 

governorship  of  Nehemiah,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  by  the  time  of 
Nehemiah  the  land  of  Moab  must  have  become  Nabataean.  This 
argument,  however,  affects  only  25:9-11  and  not  the  groundwork. 
Guthe"  thinks  there  is  no  certainty  of  time  to  be  ascribed,  but  feels 
certain  that  it  is  at  all  events  postexilic,  and  inclines  to  the  reign  of 
Ochus.  This  period  has  some  points  in  its  favor.  The  fact  that 
historical  data  in  the  chapters  are  so  few,  makes  it  difficult  to  decide 
definitely.  If  placed  here,  then  the  references  are  to  the  troubles  of 
the  warhke  reigns  of  Cambyses  and  Darius  I  {vide  supra).  In  this 
case  "the  city,"  24:10,  12;  25:2;  26:5,  6;  27:10,  is  Babylon,  a  con- 
clusion which  is  by  no  means  self-evident.  Moreover  it  is  difficult, 
if  at  all  possible,  to  find  anywhere  between  536  and  464  any  historical 
situation  which  will  at  all  adequately  explain  the  representation  of 
chap.  24  and  much  in  chap.  26.  Cheyne^  adds  this  decisive  argu- 
ment that  in  24:5  there  is  an  allusion  to  Gen.  9:3-6,  15,  16  and  in 
24:18  to  Gen.  7:11,  both  of  which  passages  belong  to  P,  so  that 
chaps.  24-27  must  be  later  than  the  reformation  of  Nehemiah  and 
Ezra,  (b)  The  late  Persian  period.  This  was  the  later  view  of 
Kuenen^  who  formerly  held  that  the  author  lived  during  the  first 
part  of  the  exile  and  that  he  predicted  the  fall  of  Babylon.  Vatke,"* 
who  had  decided  for  the  Maccabaean  period,  later  placed  the  chapters 
after  348,  the  destruction  of  Sidon  through  Ochus.  Kirkpatrick^ 
less  definitely  regards  the  fourth  century  as  the  time  of  the  origin 
of  the  chapters,  (c)  In  close  connection  with  this  period  is  the  early 
Greek,  where  Stade^  finds  an  adequate  background  for  the  chapters. 
Smend^  inclines  with  Hilgenfeld^  to  the  time  of  the  wars  of  Alexander 
after  the  conquest  of  Tyre  in  332.  The  wars  of  Ochus,  and  later  those 
of  Alexander,  are  thought  to  be  reflected  in  these  chapters.  "The 
city"  would  then  have  to  be  taken  collectively  and  would  refer  to 
Sidon,  Jerusalem,  and  Tyre.  The  long  struggle  of  Egypt  for  in- 
dependence, beginning  already  under  Artaxerxes  Mnemon  and  con- 

^  Gesch.  des  Volkes  Isr.  291  f.  and  Kautzsch  Bibel. 
»  Op.  cit.  154.  3  Onderzooh^  II.  99. 

*  Bibl.  TheoL,  1835,  550;  Einl.  in  das  A.  T.,  1886,  623. 

5  The  Doctrine  of  the  Prophets,  1892,  475,  f. 

6  Op.  cit.  I.  586.  7  Z.  A.  T.  W.,  1884,  161-224. 
8  Z.  W.  Th.,  1866,  398-448. 


6o  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

tinuing  till  the  complete  reconqucst  under  Ochus  in  343,  could  scarcely 
go  on  without  much  distress  to  Judah. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  all  the  above-named  critics  saw  no 
necessity  for  analyzing  the  chapters  into  component  parts.  They 
considered  them  essentially  a  unity.  This  was  left  for  Duhm.  And 
with  him  the  problem  of  a  correct  date  becomes  a  double  one,  first 
for  the  apocalypse  and  then  for  the  later  portions.  That  the  ground- 
work is  an  apocalypse  and  not  a  pro])hecy  may  be  accepted  as  cor- 
rect.' Duhm  thinks  the  external  situation  is  that  of  despair;  Jerusa- 
lem lies  in  ruins;  the  three  world-powers,  "the  gliding  serpent,"  "the 
winding  serpent"  and  "the  monster  that  is  in  the  sea,"  27:1,  are  the 
Parthians,  the  Syrians,  and  the  Egyptians.  The  author  of  the 
apocalypse  lived  during  the  time  of  John  Hyrcanus,  134-104.  He 
saw  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  devastation  of  Judah  through 
Antiochus  VII,  Sidetes;  the  beginning  of  the  war  with  the  Parthians 
in  which  the  Jews  were  forced  to  take  part,  129;  the  defeat  and  death 
of  Antiochus,  128,  who  is  obscurely  mentioned  in  24:1 4-1 6a.  The 
lyrical  portions  are  later.  In  25 : 1-5  Duhm  sees  the  exultation  of  the 
Jews  over  the  destruction  of  Samaria  by  John  Hyrcanus  between 
113  and  105,  and  the  demolition  of  the  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim.' 
"The  city  of  terrible  nations"  is  Rome.  The  same  background  is 
assumed  for  26:1-19.  Chap.  25,  vss.  9-1 1,  belongs  in  the  time  of 
Alexander  Jannaeus,  135-105,  who  made  the  Moabites  pay  tribute.^ 

To  this  view  of  Duhm,  Cheyne  and  Cornill  see  a  grave  objection 
in  the  history  of  the  prophetic  canon  which  they  consider  practically 
closed  at  200  b.  c.  Cheyne^  argues  that  a  strong  reason  is  required 
for  making  any  considerable  part  of  Isaiah  later  than  200  b.  c.^ 
But  the  history  of  the  canon  rests  upon  the  internal  or  textual  evidence 
largely  and  not  the  existence  of  the  text  on  the  canon.  Other  portions 
of  Isaiah  arc  evidently  as  late  as  the  last  years  of  the  second  century 
B.C.  (vide  supra).  Cheyne  finds  a  satisfactory  background  for  the 
apocalyi)se  in  the  period  of  the  long-continued  desolating  wars  over 
Syria  and  Palestine  during  the  reigns  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon  and 
of  Ochus  in  the  long  struggles  of  Egypt  for  independence,  ending 

«  So  Duhm,  Cheyne,  Marti,  Cornill.  '  Cf.  Schiirer  op.  cit.  I.  277. 

3  Jos.  AnI.  xiii.  13.  5.  4  Art.  "Isaiah"  in  E.  B.  II.  2,202. 

5  Cf.  Budde  Art.  "Canon"  in  E.  B.  I,  §39  and  n.  i- 


I 


OLD  TESTAMENT  SOURCES  6l 

in  the  consolidation  of  the  powers  of  the  Ptolemies  in  Palestine  in  301. 
The  frequent  march  of  Persian  armies  to  Egypt  must  have  caused 
much  distress  to  the  Jews.  He  sees  in  chap.  24  a  monument  of  the 
prolonged  misery  of  the  time.  The  city  or  cities  of  destruction, 
vs.  10,  may  allude  to  Sidon  and  Jerusalem.  In  27:10,  11  is  a  des- 
cription of  the  condition  of  Jerusalem  in  or  soon  after  347.  The 
hope  that  is  held  out  to  the  Jews  is  the  overthrow  of  the  Persian  power 
through  Alexander  the  Great ;  the  ghttering  weapons  of  whose  troops 
were  already  appearing  on  the  distant  horizon.  Hence  the  date  of 
the  apocalypse  would  be  about  the  year  334.  Cornill  regards  the 
apocalypse  to  date  from  ca.  330,  only  a  few  years  later  than  Cheyne, 
following  Stade  and  Smend. 

The  lyrical  portions  Cheyne  assigns  to  the  early  years  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  immediately  after  the  fall  of  Tyre,  as  the  most  probable 
date.  The  hturgical  poem,  26: 1-19,  may  describe  the  feelings  of  the 
pious  community  of  Jews,  when  their  city  had  been  spared  by  the 
army  of  Alexander,  deeply  grateful  for  this,  yet  painfully  conscious 
of  the  ruin  wrought  by  the  tyrant  Ochus.  The  gap  made  by  the 
deportation  to  Hyrcania  was  still  felt.' 

It  must  be  admitted  that  much  in  the  apocalypse  finds  an  ex- 
planation in  the  closing  years  of  the  Persian  empire.  In  the  way  of 
accepting  this  date  stands  24: 10,  for  to  take  "the  city"  to  mean  Sidon 
and  Jerusalem  is  difficult.  Evidence  is  lacking  for  any  humiliation 
of  Moab  at  this  time  such  as  25:9-11  represents  {vide  supra).  Was 
Tyre  ever  "the  lofty  city,"  26:5,  over  whose  bringing  low  the  Jews 
would  have  any  occasion  to  rejoice?  From  what  we  know  of  the 
time  of  John  Hyrcanus  and  of  the  closing  years  of  the  Persian  period, 
the  predominating  evidence  seems  to  point  in  favor  of  the  former 
for  the  chapters  under  consideration.  Perhaps  if  we  knew  what  we 
do  not  know  of  each  period  the  order  might  be  reversed. 

Not  only  the  latest  but  as  well  the  clearest  treatment  of  the  chapters 
is  that  of  Marti, ^  who  in  the  main  follows  Duhm.  He  considers  the 
apocalypse  to  embrace  {a)  24:1-23,  the  revolution  of  the  globe,  the 
judgment  over  the  powers  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  and  Jahwe  estab- 
hshing  his  throne  in  Zion;  (Jb)  25 : 6-8,  the  feast  of  Jahwe  for  all  people 

1  Op.  cit.  155-160;  cf.  Art.  "Isaiah"  in  E.  B.  II. 

2  Op.  cit.  182-202. 


62  ARTAXERXES   III    OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

in  Zion;  (c)  26: 20 — 27 :  i,  the  security  of  the  Jews  during  the  judgment 
of  the  worid;  and  {d)  27:12-13  the  gathering  of  all  Jews  to  the 
homage  of  Jahwe  in  Zion  and  to  the  participation  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  The  apocalypse  is  characterized  by  its  deep  ethical  grasp  and 
its  human  feeUng.  It  is  a  humane  spirit  that  expresses  itself  here: 
the  people  experience  in  contrast  with  the  worid-rulers  coming  into 
judgment  (24:21,  22;  27:1)  divine  compassion,  25:6-8;  yet  this  mag- 
nificent universahsm  is  not  altogether  free  from  the  particularism 
of  the  ordinary  Judaism  which,  however,  receives  a  certain  prerogative. 

That  the  apocalypse  originated  in  a  late  time  cannot  be  denied. 
Aside  from  the  Aramaic  form  "^nri  hide  thyself,  26:20,  the  theological 
conceptions  which  have  their  parallels  in  the  latest  portions  of  the 
Old  Testament,  in  the  Jewish  literature  of  the  last  two  centuries  of 
the  pre-Christian  era,  as  also  in  the  later  centuries,  and  in  the  New 
Testament,  point  to  a  late  time.  This  appears  (a)  from  the  taking 
prisoner  of  the  host  on  high  and  the  rulers  on  earth,  24:21-22;  {h) 
from  the  appearance  of  Jahwe  in  splendor  and  glory  in  Zion,  24: 23; 
(c)  from  the  feast  of  the  peoples  in  Zion  25:6-8;  {d)  from  the  security 
of  the  Jews,  in  the  judgment  of  the  world,  26:20;  and  {e)  from  the 
great  trumpet  with  which  the  signal  for  assembling  will  be  given,  27 : 
13.  The  more  definite  time  of  origin  can  be  determined  from  the 
reference  of  the  apocalyptist  to  the  situation  of  the  world:  Jeru- 
salem has  not  yet  recovered  from  the  conquest  of  Antiochus  VII, 
Sidetes,  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  John  Hyrcanus  I  (134- 
114),  24:7-12;  the  death  of  Antiochus  Sidetes  in  the  campaign 
against  the  Parthians,  128,  awakes  among  the  Jews  of  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  the  highest  hopes,  but  the  apocalyptist  expects, 
although  Judea  had  now  become  free,  the  entrance  of  "the  robbers," 
i.  e.,  the  Parthians  and,  in  connection  therewith,  the  judgment  of 
the  world  long  since  predicted  by  the  prophets,  in  which  first  of  all 
the  three  world-powers,  the  Parthians,  the  Syrians,  and  the  Egyptians, 
will  be  destroyed.  From  all  this  Marti  concludes  with  Duhm  that 
the  apocalypse  originated  shortly  after  128  B.  c.  and  that  the  author 
is  to  be  sought  in  the  ranks  of  the  Chasidim  who  expected  help  alone 
from  (iod. 

The  secondary  elements  Marti  enumerates  as  follows:  (a)  25:1-5, 
the  hymn  on  the  destruction  of  Samaria,  dating  from  ca.  107;  (6) 


OLD  TESTAMENT  SOURCES  63 

25:9-11,  a  song  of  thanksgiving  for  achieved  victory  and  the  hope 
of  the  certain  overthrow  of  Moab,  from  the  last  years  of  John  Hyr- 
canus  or  of  the  reign  of  Alexander  Jannaeus;  (c)  26:1-19,  ^^e  praise 
of  God  for  the  victory  granted  the  righteous  in  the  overthrow  of 
Samaria  and  for  the  salvation  promised  for  the  future,  from  the  same 
time  as  (a);  (d)  25:2-5,  a  poem:  Israel  the  vineyard  of  Jahwe, 
probably  from  the  same  time  as  (a)  and  (c);  and  (e)  27:7-11,  the  last 
condition  for  the  approach  of  the  day  of  salvation,  an  incitement 
for  the  complete  destruction  of  Samaria,  hence  from  the  time  between 
the  wTiting  of  the  apocalypse  and  the  fall  of  Samaria,  1 28-1 11,  by  an 
author  to  be  sought  among  the  Sadducees.^ 

These  chapters  consequently  cannot  be  accepted  as  historical 
sources  for  the  reign  of  Ochus. 

(5)  Isa.  32: 1-20,  a  part  of  the  group  of  prophecies,  chaps.  28-33, 
the  bulk  of  which  dates  from  the  closing  years  of  Isaiah,  namely  from 
the  years  of  the  league  between  Hezekiah  and  Egypt.  This  chapter, 
accepted  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald  as  Isaianic,  was  by  Kuenen  assigned 
with  hesitancy  to  the  reign  of  Josiah  or  somewhat  later.  Driver  holds 
to  the  Isaianic  authorship,  and  likewise  Duhm,  except  for  vss.  6-8 
which  he  considers  as  very  general  sayings  spoken  by  a  theolgian, 
not  by  a  pohtician.  Both  place  the  chapter  in  the  closing  years  of 
Isaiah.  Stade^  first  declared  the  chapter  non-Isaianic,  and  was 
followed  by  Guthe,  Cheyne,  Marti,  and  Cornill.  Cheyne  pointed 
out  in  vss.  1-8  alone,  among  other  reasons,  eighteen  or  nineteen  words 
which  do  not  occur  at  all  or  at  least  not  in  the  same  sense,  in  the 
generally  acknowledged  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  and  places  them  in  the 
fifth  century.  He  agrees  with  Duhm  in  separating  vss.  9-14  and 
15-20  as  by  a  different  writer  and  inchnes  to  find  the  historic  back- 
ground for  both  groups  in  the  oppression  of  the  Jews  by  Artaxerxes 
Ochus,  though  he  admits  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  come  down  so 
far.  Duhm  considers  no  argument  yet  produced  sufiicient  to  call  the 
chapter,  except  vss.  6-8,  non-Isaianic.  Marti  takes  vss.  1-5  and 
156-20  together  as  a  portrayal  of  the  prosperity  of  the  Messianic  time 
parallel  with  Isa.  11:1-8,  with  which  the  collector  of  chaps.  28-31 
wished  to  close  the  group.     Because  of  the  similarity  with  the  prover- 

I  Op.  cit.  201-2,  a  free  rendering. 
=>  Z.  A.  T.  W.,  1884,  256-71. 


64  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS  REIGN 

bial  literature  he  dates  the  sections  in  the  Greek  period.  Vss.  9-14 
are  parallel  with  3 :  16 — 4 :  i  and,  like  that,  should  precede  the  portrayal 
of  the  Messianic  happiness  before  32:1,  and  probably  date  from  the 
same  time  as  the  other  sections,  while  vss.  6-8  evidently  come  from 
the  years  168-165,  the  time  of  Antiochus  IV,  Epiphanes. 

(6)  Isa.  33:1-24,  the  future  happiness  of  the  capital  Jerusalem 
rescued  from  danger.  Already  Ewald  pronounced  the  chapter  non- 
Isaianic  and  ascribed  it  to  a  disciple  of  Isaiah  in  the  last  years  of 
Hezekiah.  Kuenen,  with  hesitation,  inchned  to  the  reign  of  Josiah  or 
a  httle  later.  But  there  was  no  church  at  that  time  such  as  is  imphed 
in  chap.  33.  Driver  dates  the  chapter  a  year  later  than  chap.  32, 
namely  701,  while  all  other  later  critics  accept  the  postexihc  date. 
Cheyne  gives  the  argument  for  this  at  some  length,'  and  ascribes 
the  chapter  to  the  second  half  of  the  Persian  period,  possibly  though 
not  necessarily  in  the  reign  of  Ochus.  The  educated  Jews  of  that 
time,  he  says,  "had  two  special  consolations  or  recreations:  first, 
they  dwelt  in  imagination  in  the  glorious  future  which  the  deepening 
gloom  did  but  bring  nearer,  and,  next,  they  enriched  the  extant 
prophetic  records  with  insertions  and  appendices,  expressive  of  their 
own  hopes  and  aspirations."^ 

A  better  solution  is  that  of  Duhm  and  Marti  who  call  the  chapter 
an  apocalyptic  poem  and  place  it,  the  one  in  the  year  162  under 
Antiochus  Eupator,  the  other  a  year  earlier.  Marti  calls  the  chapter 
"  a  poem  of  consolation  from  that  unfortunate  time."  Comill  agrees 
that  the  chapter  is  apocalyptic,  later  than  chap.  32,  and  sees  in  it  a 
fitting  close  for  the  group  of  prophecies  reflecting  the  time  of  Senna- 
cherib. BickcU^  found  by  rearranging  the  text  two  Maccabaean 
poems,  one  a  prayer  to  Jahwe  for  help  after  a  defeat,  the  other  an 
acrostic  poem  on  Simon,  probably  of  the  year  142,  after  the  entrance 
into  Jerusalem  delivered  by  the  Syrians.  While  such  a  rearrangement 
is  not  at  all  impossible,  the  gain  therefrom  is  scarcely  sufhcient  to 
justify  it. 

Hence  there  is  nothing  of  sufTicient  defmiteness  in  chaps.  32  and 
33  bearing  on  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Ochus  to  justify  their  accept- 
ance as  historic  sources  for  that  period. 

(7)  Isa.,  chaps.  56-66,  the  so-called  Trito-Isaiah.      It  is  only 

»  Op.  cit.  163-73.  J  Ibid.  172.  3  Z.  K.  M.,  1897. 


OLD   TESTAMENT  SOURCES  65 

within  recent  years  that  these  chapters  were  separated  from  chaps. 
40-55,  That  they  form  a  separate  group  of  prophecies  from  those 
of  chaps.  40-55  is  now  rightly  the  prevaiHng  opinion.  A  brief 
general  summary  of  the  history  of  the  criticism  of  chaps.  56-66  will 
be  helpful  in  determining  their  true  place  in  history.  There  are 
essentially  four  periods  to  which  the  chapters  have  been  assigned, 
not  to  mention  the  writers  who  claim  them  for  Isaiah.' 

a)  First  in  connection  with  Isa.,  chaps.  40-55,  known  as  Deutero- 
Isaiah,  in  the  last  years  of  the  exile,  not  as  a  separate  group  of 
prophecies,  but  as  a  part  of  Deutero-Isaiah,  or,  at  the  utmost,  as 
additions  by  the  same  or  another  author  or  authors.  Thus  Ewald 
considered  chaps.  58-59  as  borrowed  by  Deutero-Isaiah  from  a  con- 
temporary of  Ezekiel,  and  63 : 7 — 66 : 1-24  as  added  by  the  same  author 
after  the  return  from  the  exile.  Dillman  placed  chaps.  40-48  at 
ca.  545,  chaps.  49-62  from  545-538,  and  chaps.  63-66  as  an  appendix 
at  the  time  of  the  edict  of  Cyrus.  Kuenen  regarded  chaps.  40-49, 
52:1-12  and  perhaps  also  52:13 — 53:12  as  the  prophecy  of  the 
restoration,  and  the  rest  he  ascribed  on  internal  grounds  to  an  author 
or  authors  in  Palestine  after  the  return  from  the  exile,  either  Deutero- 
Isaiah  himself  or  subsequent  writers  belonging  to  the  same  school. 
Stade*  accepted  the  chapters  as  from  one  author  writing  at  the  close 
of  the  exile,  but  recognized  the  incongruity  of  chaps.  54  f .  with  the 
preceding.  These  were  worked  over  and  additions  from  the  same 
and  later  times  were  made : 

Dass  diese  Capitcl  auf  einen  und  denselben  am  Ende  des  Exils  weissagenden 
Mann  zuriickzufuhren  seien,  trifft  wenigstens  im  Wesentlichen  das  Richtige, 
da  die  Weissagungen  dieses  Mannes  des  Abschnittes  Jes  Capp  40-66  bilden. 
Einzelne  der  in  ihm  stehende  Abschnitte  erklaren  sich  jedoch  nicht  aus  den 
Zeitverhaltnissen  am  Ausgange  des  Exils  oder  sprengen  den  Zusammenhang. 

Zuweilen  liegt  auch  beides  vor Deshalb  wird  zunachst  an  Ueberar- 

beitungen  oder  Einschaltungen  fremder,  friihestens  gleichzeitiger  Stiicke  zu 
denken  sein,  und  erst,  wo  hierdurch  die  vorhandenen  Ratsel  nicht  gelost  warden, 
an  Einschaltungen  alterer.  (S.  70). 

Wildeboer^  agrees  that  chaps.  40-48  were  written  in  Babylon  but 
claims  that  the  greater  part  of  chaps.  49-62  presupposes  a  writer 

1  Hengstenberg,  Havernitz,  Drechsler,  Delitzschs,  Stier,  Keil,  Lohr,  Rutgers, 
Himpel,  Nagelsbach,  Douglas,  W.  H.  Cobb. 

2  Op.  cit.  II.  68-94.  3  De  Letterkunde,  Ger.  Transl.  §17. 


66  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS  REIGN 

living  in  Palestine,  at  the  same  time  as  the  author  of  chaps.  40-48. 
In  chaps.  63-66  alone  does  he  find  the  marks  of  a  later  hand.  Even 
these  loosely  connected  fragments  may  as  far  as  their  contents  are 
concerned  come  from  the  same  prophet,  but  not  in  their  present 
form.  A  pecuhar  view,  and  one  which  remained  practically  his  own, 
is  that  of  Bredencamp  who  takes  a  middle  ground,  claiming  a  nucleus 
of  genuine  Isaianic  passages  in  chaps.  40-66  which  were  ampUfied 
and  published  by  a  prophet  of  the  period  of  the  exile.  J.  Ley'  con- 
siders chaps.  40-66  as  one  continuous  work  dominated  by  a  unity  of 
spirit,  hence  from  one  author,  and  written  during  a  period  of  from 
thirty  to  thirty-five  years  from  the  advances  of  Cyrus  toward 
western  Asia  till  the  second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  Driver^  and 
Orelli^  call  chaps.  40-66  one  continuous  prophecy  from  toward  the 
close  of  the  exile,  dealing  throughout  with  a  common  theme,  namely 
Israel's  restoration  from  exile  in  Babylon,  and  all  from  one  author. 
With  this  view  J.  Skinner"*  agrees  in  the  main,  though  not  without 
due  recognition  of  the  possibihty  of  a  later  date  for  chaps.  56-66, 
inclining  to  the  eve  of  the  great  reformation  under  Nehemiah. 

b)  The  second  period  is  that  between  the  return  and  the  building 
of  the  temple,  538-520.  It  will  be  remembered  that  none  of  the 
authorities  mentioned  in  (a)  hold  to  a  separation  of  chaps.  40-55  and 
56-66.  This  division  was  first  made  by  Marti^  in  an  investigation 
suggested  to  him  in  a  conversation  with  Duhm,  who  afterwards 
worked  out  the  problem  fully.*^  E.  SeUin'  considers  this  division 
absolutely  established  and  feels  certain  that  chaps.  56-66  were 
written  in  Palestine.  In  an  earlier  work^  he  thought  to  have  estab- 
lished the  fall  of  Zerubbabel  and  a  destruction  of  the  second  temple 
between  515  and  500,  and  thought  of  the  period  following  this  as  the 
time  of  origin  for  these  chapters.  In  his  later  investigation  he  aban- 
dons this  view  and  finds  the  period  538-520  the  best  background 

'  Hisl.  Erkldrung  157.  2  Introd.  230  f. 

3  Dcr  Prophet  Jesaia,  19043,  141-45. 

*  Isa.,  chaps.  40-66  in  Camb.  Bible,  1898. 

s  Der  Proph.  Sack,  der  Zeilgenosse  Serubbabels,  1892,  40,  41,  n. 

6  "Jesaia"  H.  K.  A.  T. 

7  Die  Restauration  der  Jiid.  Gemeinde  in  den  Jahren  538-516,  1901,  124-53. 

•  Serubbabel,  1899. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   SOURCES  67 

for  the  prophecy  as  a  whole,  and  bases  his  conclusion  upon  the  refer- 
ences: 63:18,  64:9,  and  66:1-5.  He  finds  nothing  in  the  entire 
book  that  points  with  certainty  to  the  existence  of  the  temple  before 
the  composition  of  the  prophecy.  "So  ist  unser  Resultat,  dass  zwar 
drei  ganz  konkrete  Anhaltepunkte  die  Entstehung  von  Jes.  Kap. 
56-66  zwischen  537  und  520  beweisen,  dass  aber  kein  eniziges  Argu- 
ment existiert,  welches  die  Abfassung  nach  dieser  Zeit  wahrscheinlich 
macht"  (S.  147).  As  to  the  author  he  ventures  no  decision,  but 
inclines  to  Deutero-Isaiah  returned  from  the  Babylonian  exile,  and 
thinks  we  are  not  yet  justified  to  speak  of  a  Trito-Isaiah  (i 50-1 51). 
Sellin  stands  alone  in  placing  the  entire  prophecy  in  this  period. 
Others  place  certain  portions  here,  e.  g.,  63: 7 — 64: 12.  So  for  instance 
H.  Gressmann'  and  E.  Littmann^  {vide  infra).  Cornill^  in  earUer 
editions  of  his  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.  placed  the  prophecy  before 
520,  claiming  that  Haggai  (2:7-9)  borrowed  from  Trito-Isaiah, 
but  in  his  sixth  edition  this  view  is  abandoned  {vide  infra). 

c)  The  third  period  is  the  eve  of  the  great  reformation  of  Nehe- 
miah,  shortly  before  444.  It  is  here  where  Duhm  has  rendered 
lasting  services,  for  his  placing  the  chapters  in  this  period  at  once 
furnished  the  key  to  the  interpretation  of  many  otherwise  dark  and 
meaningless  passages.  Trito-Isaiah  is  for  him  a  postexiHc  author, 
at  a  time  when  the  Kahal  or  the  Jewish  religious  community  had 
long  been  established,  Jerusalem  inhabited,  the  temple  built,  yet 
everything  in  a  pitiable  condition.  The  leaders  of  the  community 
avail  nothing,  the  rich  oppress  the  poor,  on  fast  days  there  is  con- 
tention and  strife,  the  pious  are  no  more.  Jahwe  has  no  instrument 
like  Cyrus:  he  must  with  his  own  hand  execute  vengeance  upon  his 
enemies.  These  enemies  are  the  heretics,  the  false  brethren  of  the 
Jerusalem  community  upon  whom  the  day  of  vengeance  will  come. 
They  will  be  made  an  example  before  the  pious  for  whom  the  day  of 
salvation  will  appear.  The  sun  and  moon  will  be  no  more,  wild 
beasts  will  be  tame,  men  will  live  for  several  centuries.  The  temple 
will  be  ornamented  with  precious  wood  from  Lebanon  and  enriched 
by  the  wealth  of  the  nations.  The  Diaspora  will  return  and  the 
nations  will  unite  themselves  with  the  Jews. 

I  Ueher  die  in  Jes.  54-66  vorausgesetzten  zeitgeschichtlichen  Verhdltnisse,  1898. 
*  Uehar  die  Abjassungszeit  des  Tritojesaia,  1899.  3  Op.  cit.  1984,  161 3. 


68  AKTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS   REIGN 

Duhm  considers  the  entire  prophecy,  except  some  minor  additions, 
as  the  work  of  one  author  who  was  at  the  same  time  the  redactor 
of  chaps.  40-55,  a  theologian,  and  an  apocalyptist,  thoroughly  imbued 
with  theocratic  ideas.  The  contrast  between  chaps.  40-55  and 
56-66  is  ver}'  marked.  The  text  of  chaps.  55-66  is  not  well  preserved 
and  is  full  of  glosses  and  additions.  The  original  order  is  uncertain 
but  it  is  probable  that  chaps.  61-66  preceded  chaps.  56-60,  since 
chap.  61  would  make  as  good  a  beginning  as  chap.  60  would  a  close. 
It  is  possible  that  chaps.  56-66  were  composed  as  an  appendix  to 
Dcutero-Isaiah.  Trito-Isaiah  is  at  once  a  supplement  to  Malachi 
and  a  forerunner  of  the  priest  codex. 

Duhm  soon  had  a  large  following.  Smend'  first  of  all  declared 
his  full  acceptance  of  the  hypothesis.  Cheyne  calls  the  work  the  most 
important  on  the  subject  since  the  appearance  of  Ewald's  Prophets, 
and  accepts  in  the  main  the  conclusion  as  to  date.  Chaps.  56-66, 
he  says,  contain  no  works  of  the  second  Isaiah,  but,  with  the  possible 
or  probable  exception  of  63:7 — 64:12,  which  belong  in  the  time  of 
Artaxerxes  Ochus  {vide  infra),  belong  to  nearly  the  same  period — 
that  of  Nehemiah.  He  rejects,  however,  the  view  that  the  book  has 
anything  Hke  literary  unity  and  that  it  is  the  work  of  one  man.  On 
the  contrary  it  is  the  work  of  a  number  of  different  writers  who  fell 
under  the  hterary  spell  of  Deutero-Isaiah  and  loved  to  perpetuate 
his  teaching  and  develop  his  ideas.  He  considers  it  practically 
certain  that  chaps.  60-62  are  an  appendix  to  chaps.  40-55,  of  which 
the  original  order  probably  was  61,  62,  60.  While  56:9 — 57:13a 
belongs  to  the  same  period  as  the  main  portions,  it  shows  in  a  special 
degree  the  influence  of  Ezekiel.  To  a  still  later  time  than  63 : 7 — 64 : 1 2 
belongs  the  outburst  of  bitter  animosity  in  66: 23,  24.  It  was  signifi- 
cant that  Wellhausen^  likewise  accepted  the  conclusions  of  Duhm. 
"  Dass  Isa.,  Kap.  56  ss.  nicht  zu  Kap.  40  ss.  gehoren,  sondern  aus 
spalerer  Zeit  stammen,  halte  ich  fur  erwiesen."  Kosters^  agrees 
with  Cheyne  as  to  the  position  of  chaps.  56-66,  and  with  Duhm  leaves 
63: 7 — 64: 12  in  the  same  time.  Marti,  who  has  first  called  attention 
to  the  division  between  chaps.  40-55  and  56-66,  agrees  essentially, 

•  Altteslamentiiche  Religionsgeschichle  339,  n.   2. 
'  Isr.  u.  Jiid.  Gesch.^  151,  n.  i;  cf.  1904S  159,  n.  i. 
3  Thcol.  Tijdschr.,  1896,  577-623. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   SOURCES  69 

both  in  his  earlier  works'  and  in  his  Isaiah,  with  Duhm's  treatment 
of  the  subject.  Marti  considers  the  chapters,  aside  from  minor 
additions,  as  coming  from  one  author  who  Hved  in  Jerusalem  in  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century  before  the  arrival  of  Nehemiah.  E. 
Meyer^  considers  this  view  from  a  historical  standpoint  correct. 
"Das  Verstandniss  des  Schlusstheils  des  Jesaiabuches  von  Kap. 
56  an,  des  'Tritojesaia'  hat  Duhm  ....  erschlossen"  (120). 
H.  Gressmann^  agrees  with  Duhm  that  chaps.  56-66  are  on  ground 
of  thought  content  and  language  a  separate  work  from  Deutero- 
Isaiah  and  that  all  parts  are  postexiHc  (30,  26),  and  with  Cheyne 
that  the  chapters  are  not  a  hterary  unity.  "Tritojesaia  ist  keine 
einheitliche  Schrift,  sondern  besteht  aus  vielen  meistens  zusammen- 
hanglosen  Stiicken"  (26).  Both  Cheyne  and  Gressmann  made  a 
careful  linguistic  analysis  and  came  to  the  same  conclusion,  namely, 
that  these  chapters  are  of  dififerent  origin  from  chaps.  40-55.  Gress- 
mann considers  chaps.  56-66  as  originating  from  Judea  but  no  part 
as  coming  from  Deutero-Isaiah.  A  more  exact  time  than  post- 
exilic  is  scarcely  probable,  even  impossible  (6),  except  for  66:1-4, 
which  he  places  immediately  before  the  building  of  the  temple, 
where  also  63 .-7 — 64:12  probably  belongs.  Of  essentially  the  same 
opinion  as  Duhm  is  E.  Littmann'*  for  whom  the  work  is  for  the  most 
part  a  unity,  and  from  one  author  and  from  the  years  457-455, 
except  63:7 — 64:12  which  probably  come  from  the  years  538-520. 
As  not  belonging  to  Trito-Isaiah  59:5-8;  66:23,  24  are  certain  and 
56:1-8  probable,  besides  minor  additions.  Cornill^  who  held  a 
more  conservative  view  earlier  now  inclines  to  the  same  conclusion 
that  the  prophecy  is  fashioned  after  Deutero-Isaiah  and  is  the  work 
of  one  author  who  lived  in  Palestine  and  who  wrote  not  immediately 
after  the  exile  nor  later  than  Nehemiah  (181-182). 

d)  The  fourth  and  last  period  to  which  our  chapters  have  been 
assigned  is  the  second  half  of  the  Persian  period.  Cheyne^  con- 
siders 63 : 7 — 64 : 1 2  as  probably  belonging  in  this  time,  a  conclusion 
which  Guthe^  is  inclined  to  accept.     G.  Holscher^  places  not  only 

'  Theol.  des  A.  T.,  1894*,  and  Gesch.  der  Isr.  Religion,  1897,  361  f. 

»  Entst.  des  Judentums  1 20  f .  3  Op.  cit.  4  Op.  cit.  s  Op.  cit. 

^  Op.  cit.  349-63;  cf.  Art.  "Isaiah"  in  E.  B.  II. 

T  Gesch.  des  Volkes  Isr.  291.  ^  Paldstina  in  der  Pers.  u.  Hel.  Zeit  37-43. 


yo  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS    AND   HIS   REIGN 

these  chapters  here  but  the  entire  Trito-Isaiah.  He  agrees  with 
Duhm  and  others  that  these  chapters  are  a  literary  unity,  the  work 
of  an  author  who  lived  in  Palestine,  and  that  his  work  is  a  polemic 
directed  against  the  Samaritans.  "Die  Polemik  richtet  sich  also 
gegcn  Leute,  die  zum  Kultus  von  Jerusalem  gehalten  haben  aber 
im  Begriflfe  sind,  Jahwe  zu  verlassen  und  einen  eigenen  Tempel 
sich  bauen  wollen"  (40).  But  he  dates  the  prophecies  a  century 
later,  namely  in  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  Ochus.  He  reverses  the 
argument.  Instead  of  dating  the  Samaritan  schism  according  to 
Neh.  13:28,  29  he  dates  it  according  to  Isa.,  chaps.  55-66  and  denies 
that  Neh.  13:28,  29  has  any  reference  to  the  schism  of  Shechem, 
since  it  only  refers  to  a  priest  guilty  of  mixed  marriage  who  continued 
in  his  office.'  Josephus  Ant.  xi.  7.2;  8.2.4  is  best  explained  as 
a  false  exegesis  of  the  Nehemiah  passage,  and  is  not,  as  is  usually 
done,  to  be  accepted  as  correct  in  event  but  wrong  in  date. 

The  references  to  the  ruins  of  the  walls,  60:10,  15,  62:4,  6,  7, 
he  admits,  but  claims  also  the  ruin  of  the  temple,  which  does  not  at 
all  fit  into  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  He  finds  no  compelling  reason 
for  regarding  64:9-11  as  a  later  addition,  as  Marti  does  {vide  infra). 
Yet  he  does  not  use  these  verses  according  to  which  Jerusalem  was 
desolate  and  the  temple  ruined  in  flames  for  an  argument,  but  he 
refers  to  63:18,  which  Duhm  and  Marti  retain,  with  sUght  emenda- 
tions. This  does  not  necessarily  mean  a  radical  destruction  of  the 
temple  but  at  any  rate  a  severe  damage  to  it.  These  words  do  not 
sound  as  if  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  through  Nebuchadrezzar, 
a  century  or  more  before,  were  meant,  but  evidently  one  much 
closer.    In  60: 18  the  writer  comforts  his  readers  with  the  words: 

Violence  shall  no  more  be  heard  in  thy  land, 
Desolation  nor  destruction  within  thy  borders. 

For  such  comfort  there  must  have  been  occasion  at  that  time.  Hence 
Holscher  concludes  against  Marti  that  at  the  time  of  Trito-Isaiah 
some  calamity  through  war  must  have  befallen  the  Jews  in  which 
both  the  walls  and  the  temple  were  greatly  damaged,  an  event  which 
docs  not  fit  into  the  time  of  Nehemiah  (41).  To  establish  tliis 
conclusion  he  adds  the  following  arguments:    (a)  the  mention  of  a 

•  For  another  view  cf.  Stade,  Gesch.  II.  188  f. 


OLD   TESTAMENT  SOURCES  7 1 

Jewish  Diaspora,  60:9;  66:19,  unknown  before  Nehemiah;  (b)  the 
acceptance  of  proselytes,  56:3  f.,  the  very  opposite  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  finding  its  best  explanation  in  the  time  of  Ruth  and 
Jonah;  (c)  the  Nabataeans  are  elsewhere  mentioned  only  in  passages 
after  Nehemiah ;'  (d)  Isa.  65 :  10  marks  a  boundary  in  the  east  com- 
prehensible only  after  the  destruction  of  Jericho  through  Artaxerxes 
Ochus  in  352,  during  whose  reign  the  separation  of  the  Samaritans 
from  the  Jews  took  place.  Trito-Isaiah  would  then  have  a  twofold 
purpose:  To  comfort  the  pious  over  the  calamity  that  came  upon 
them  through  the  campaign  of  Artaxerxes  Ochus,  and  a  polemic 
against  the  schismatics  who  are  about  to  build  their  own  temple  (42) . 
A  more  detailed  examination  of  63 : 7 — 64 :  12  will  help  to  determine 
the  problem  before  us.  The  section  offers  difficulties  for  the  period 
just  before  Nehemiah  and  has  been  assigned  to  the  time  of  Arta- 
xerxes Ochus  by  several  authorities.  Various  different  views  have 
been  advanced  concerning  the  origin  of  the  passage:  (a)  As  we 
have  already  seen.  Ley,  Gressmann,  Littmann  and  Sellin  think  of 
the  time  after  the  return  of  the  exile  and  before  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple,  hence  between  538  and  520.  They  take  64:9-11  to  refer 
to  the  destruction  of  the  temple  in  586,  and  63: 18  and  66:  i  f.  to  the 
condition  of  the  returned  exiles,  namely,  oppression  by  enemies,  and 
before  the  temple  was  rebuilt,  (b)  To  this  Duhm,  Marti,  and  with 
them  Kosters  and  Cornill,  answer  that  the  Kahal  was  organized, 
Jerusalem  inhabited,  and  the  temple  built,  but  the  walls  in  ruins, 
and  assign  the  section  to  the  time  immediately  before  Nehemiah, 
somewhere  between  458  and  444.  Duhm  emends  and  translates 
63:18: 

For  a  short  time  have  we  possessed  thy  holy  city, 
Our  oppressors  have  trodden  down  thy  sanctuary, 

and  sees  in  it  a  reference  to  the  conditions  referred  to  in  Neh.  1:3. 
The  oppressors  are  the  Samaritans.  He  calls  63: 7 — 64:12  "without 
doubt  the  best  that  Trito-Isaiah  has  written."  The  second  temple 
exists,  but  the  writer  ignores  it  because  of  its  inferiority  to  the  first, 
just  as  the  old  men  who  had  seen  the  first  temple  wept  at  the  founda- 
tion-laying of  the  second  temple,  Ezr.  3:12,  13.  "Our  holy  and 
our  beautiful  house,  where  our  fathers  praised  thee,"  vs.  11,  refers 

I  Cf.  Cheyne  in  E.  B.  III.  3,254;   Holscher  op.  cit.  23-25. 


72  ARTAXERXES   III  OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

to  the  Solomonic  temple.  Marti  sees  in  63:18  an  unmistakable 
reference  to  the  second  temple  and  thinks  the  author  must  have 
lived  while  it  existed.  That  the  author  of  64:9-11  ignored  the 
second  temple  and  referred  to  the  first  can  hardly  be  correct,  and  so 
he  calls  the  verses  a  later  addition,  from  the  same  hand  as  the  gloss 
in  63:15,  16,  dating  from  the  time  of  the  Syrian  persecution  under 
the  Maccabees  in  the  second  century,  (c)  Cheyne,  to  whose  view 
Guthe  inclines,  and  Holscher,  as  we  have  already  seen,  find  the  most 
satisfactory  explanation  in  the  history  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
Ochus,  and  think  of  some  calamity  that  befell  Jerusalem  and  the 
temple  at  that  time,  of  which  traces  are  found  in  secular  history 
(vide  supra).  Cheyne  considers  these  verses  a  unique  composition 
dififerent  from  the  rest  of  chaps.  56-66  which  he  also  places  shortly 
before  Nehemiah,  while  Holscher  regards  the  chapters  as  a  unity 
and  brings  them  all  into  this  period.  Cheyne'  calls  the  text  of 
63:18  "notoriously  doubtful"  and  emends  and  translates: 

Why  do  the  wicked  trample  thy  dwelling  place  ? 
Our  adversaries  tread  down  thy  sanctuary. 

Marti  answers  this  by  pointing  out  that  the  verse  speaks  not  of  a 
destruction  of  the  temple  but  of  despising  it.  So  he  emends  and 
translates : 

Why  do  the  ungodly  despise  (belittle,  ridicule)  thy  temple? 

Why  do  our  adversaries  trample  down  (treat  with  depreciation)  thy  sanctuary  ? 

This  no  doubt  is  the  best  rendering  and  gives  us  the  correct  thought. 
But  Marti's  view  of  the  date  obliges  him  to  treat  64:9-11  as  an 
addition  where  Duhm  is  driven  to  an  unwarranted  interpretation. 
The  date  of  Cheyne  and  Holscher  makes  the  interpretation  simpler 
if  otherwise  justifiable.  Marti's  rendering  of  63:18  could  then  be 
accepted  for  this  period  as  well  as  a  century  earlier,  since  it  is  not 
definitely  known  what  calamity  befell  the  temple  in  the  days  of 
Ochus.  Was  it  literally  burned?  Was  it  only  polluted?  Or 
merely  despised  and  behttled  and  depreciated?  To  the  Jews  the 
last  might  have  been  as  much  of  a  burden  as  the  first.  Must  the 
outside  historical  evidence  be  absolute  before  we  can  date  the  chapters 
here  ?    With  the  strong  probability  of  the  external  history  furnishing 

•  Art.  "Isaiah"  in  E.  B.  II.  2,307. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   SOURCES  73 

a  clearer  and  more  satisfactory  explanation  of  these  chapters,  why 
can  we  not  take  these  chapters  to  strengthen  and  confirm  the  external 
history  ?  As  long  as  these  chapters  lose  nothing  on  the  one  hand  by 
placing  them  in  this  later  period,  and  on  the  other  gain  in  clearness 
and  historic  meaning,  is  there  any  reason  why  they  should  not  be 
placed  here  ? 

e)  One  other  period  was  thought  of,  namely,  by  G/otius  and 
Hubigant,  who  assign  the  chapters  to  the  Maccabaean  time,  but 
scarcely  with  sufficient  probability.  The  period  would  indeed  furnish 
the  explanation  of  64:9-11  as  Marti  has  shown,  but  the  remainder 
of  the  section  does  not  require  so  late  a  date  and  these  verses  find 
a  reasonable  explanation  earUer. 

If  now  63 : 7 — 64 : 1 2  finds  reasonable  explanation  in  the  late  Persian 
period,  how  about  the  remainder  of  chaps.  56-66  ?  In  answer  to  the 
five  different  views  advanced  with  reference  to  the  prophecy  as  a 
whole  the  following  may  be  said:  (a)  That  chaps.  40-55  and  56-66 
are  not  one  work  but  two  groups  of  prophecies  from  different  authors 
and  at  different  times  may,  thanks  to  the  services  of  Marti  and  Duhm, 
and  their  followers,  be  accepted  as  established,  on  ground  of  differ- 
ences in  thought  content,  historic  background,  and  as  Cheyne  and 
Gressmann  have  satisfactorily  shown,  also  on  ground  of  difference 
in  language,  (b)  The  period  of  538-520,  aside  from  the  fact  that  its 
advocate,  Sellin,  stands  alone,  is  improbable  if  not  impossible  for 
reasons  already  stated.  The  references  to  the  existence  of  the  second 
temple  are  too  definite,  the  whole  development  of  the  Kahal  too 
evident,  and  the  difference  in  language  too  great  to  accept  this, 
(c)  That  the  prophecy  was  written  in  Jerusalem  shortly  before  the 
arrival  of  Nehemiah,  as  Duhm,  Marti  and  others  claim,  has  much 
in  its  favor.  Attention  has  rightly  been  called  to  the  existence  of  the 
Kahal  and  the  temple  with  its  cult,  the  habitation  of  Jerusalem, 
Sabbaths  and  fast-days,  the  presence  of  enemies  and  the  coming  day 
of  revenge  upon  them,  the  expectation  of  a  brighter  future  for  Jeru- 
salem and  the  return  of  the  Diaspora.  Points  in  common  with 
Malachi  may  also  be  admitted.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  this  date.  First  of  all  is  the  section  63 : 7 — 64: 11, 
a  part  of  which  at  least  cannot  belong  here.  Duhm  tries  to  retain 
it  but  is  driven  to  a  forced  interpretation  for  64:9-11,  and  Marti  is  led 


74  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

to  consider  it  a  later  addition.  In  either  case  the  unity  is  broken. 
The  mention  of  a  Jewish  Diaspora  returning  from  the  islands  of  the 
sea,  60:9;  66: 19,  and  the  acceptance  of  Proselytes  56:3  f.  (Holscher) 
does  not  fit  into  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  The  time  of  Nehemiah  was 
still  concerned  with  the  return  of  more  exiles,  but  here  the  gentiles 
are  to  come,  chap.  60.  The  similarity  w^ith  Malachi  is  not  as  great 
as  we  would  expect.  Sabbaths  and  fast-days  are  mentioned  but  not 
in  the  same  sense.  Here  there  is  no  emphasis  laid  on  the  sins  of 
mixed  marriages,  corrupt  priests,  and  faulty  sacrifices  as  in  Malachi. 
{d)  Do  the  closing  years  of  the  Persian  period  (Holscher)  ofifer  a 
better  background  for  the  prophecy  as  a  whole  ?  The  unity  estab- 
lished by  Duhm  would  remain  and  be  strengthened,  since  that  which 
breaks  it  for  a  century  earlier,  64:9-11,  finds  a  reasonable  explana- 
tion here.  The  existence  of  the  temple  is  consistent.  In  fact  all 
points  in  favor  of  that  period  also  apply  here,  and  the  difficulties 
become  less.  The  Diaspora,  on  the  islands  of  the  sea,  and  the  coming 
of  the  gentiles  clearly  find  a  place  in  this  time.  The  mention  of  the 
Nabataeans,  6c  .  7,  finds  an  easier  explanation  in  the  later  date  since 
their  kingdom  was  not  estabUshed  till  the  close  of  the  fifth  century, 
and  perhaps  not  till  later.  The  great  difference  in  language  also 
finds  an  easier  explanation  here  since  the  difference  in  two  centuries 
would  be  greater  than  in  one.  The  apocalyptic  element  present  here 
likewise  points  to  the  later  rather  than  the  earlier  date,  (e)  To  put 
the  entire  selection  into  the  Maccabaean  period  is  out  of  the  question 
altogether. 

There  is  another  consideration  upon  which  much  depends  in  this 
investigation,  namely,  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan  church  and  their 
temple.'  We  know  that  the  Samaritans  were  the  remnant  of  the 
land,  very  probably  mixed  with  the  peoples  planted  in  the  northern 
kingdom  by  the  Assyrian  kings.  In  the  days  of  Josiah  they  united 
with  the  Jews  in  the  use  of  the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  II  Chron.  34:9. 
The  eighty  men  from  Shcchem,  Shiloh,  and  Samaria,  mentioned  in 
Jer.  41 : 5,  can  only  have  been  Samaritans.  Then  for  a  century  we 
have  no  information  concerning  them.  After  the  Jews  returned 
from  the  exile  the  Samaritans  were  refused  a  share  in  the  new  temple, 

'  See  Kautzsch  Art.  "Samaritans"  in  Realenc.,  1906,  Vol.  17;  Stade  Gesch.  II. 
188  £.;  A.  E.  Cowley  Art.  "Samaritans"  in  E.  B.  III. 


OLD  TESTAMENT   SOURCES  75 

Ezra  4:5.  But  the  real  cause  of  the  mutual  estrangement  and  the 
implacable  hatred  between  the  two  must  he  deeper  than  this.  It 
was  the  old  spirit  of  opposition  between  Israel  and  Judah  which  had 
asserted  itself  in  the  days  of  Jeroboam  I.  It  was  in  reahty  a  revolt 
against  centrahzation.  Even  under  David  the  two  kingdoms  were 
never  fully  blended  into  one.  The  separation  between  Jews  and 
Samaritans  in  the  later  time  was  pohtical  rather  than  rehgious. 
The  Samaritans  would  have  worshipped  at  Jerusalem  in  the  days 
of  Ezra,  Ezra  6:21,  but  the  Jews  were  exclusive  and  would  have  no 
deahngs  with  them.  In  their  condition  of  social  and  rehgious  dis- 
organization they  found  it  necessary  to  pursue  the  same  poHcy  as  the 
Jews,  and  to  avoid  danger  to  themselves  they  sought  to  hinder  the 
Jews.  This  strife  continued  till  they  had  their  own  temple  on  Mount 
Gerizim,  after  which  separation  was  complete  and  reunion  impossible. 
"  Of  the  Samaritan  temple  we  have  no  mention  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  occasion  and  date  of  its  erection  are  ahke  difficult."*  Jose- 
phus,^  who  places  the  schism  and  the  erection  of  the  temple  under 
Alexander  the  Great  in  332,  is  generally  thought  to  be  incorrect. 
Stade  thinks  Josephus  confuses  the  events  of  Neh.  13:28,  29  and 
brings  them  a  century  later  into  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
It  is  probably  best  to  consider  the  passage  in  Josephus  as  a  misin- 
terpretation of  Neh.  13:28,  29.3  The  answer  as  to  the  time  of  the 
Samaritan  schism  cannot  be  determined  from  it  nor  from  Neh. 
13:28,  29  which  has  no  connection  with  the  schism  of  Shechem. 
That  the  division  took  place  a  century  before  the  temple  was  built 
is  altogether  improbable,  except  that  there  was  a  continued  hatred 
which  found  its  final  culmination  only  when  the  temple  was  once 
built.  And  the  building  of  the  temple,  even  though  the  Samaritans 
had  the  rehgion  of  the  Jews  except  the  results  of  the  exile,  depended 
no  doubt  on  the  possession  of  the  written  Pentateuch.  For  rehgious 
documents  are  not  produced  by  temples,  but  the  hfe  gendered  by 
rehgious  teachings  results  in  temples.  Since  the  Pentateuch  was 
not  completed  before  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  the  Samari- 
tans could  not  have  come  into  possession  of  it  till  after  that  time, 
and  consequently  the  schism  came  after  400  b.  c,  and  not  in  the  time 

1  Cowley  E.  B.  4,259.  z  Cowley  E.  B.  4,259;  Holscher  op.  cil.  39. 

2  Ant.  xi.  7.2;  8.2,  4. 


76  ARTAXERXES  III   OCHUS  AND  HIS  REIGN 

of  Nehcmiah,  but  rather  as  Holscher  has  shown  at  the  time  of  the 
destruction  of  Jericho  in  352.  The  schism  reached  its  culmination 
with  the  building  of  the  temple.  And  the  temple,  according  to 
Josephus'  was  built  early  in  the  reign  of  Alexander  the  Great,  since 
it  was  destroyed  in  128  b.  c.  after  existing  two  centuries. 

The  conclusion  reached  is  that  the  prevailing  evidence  points  to 
the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century,  namely,  to  the  reign  of  Ochus, 
for  the  origin  of  Trito-Isaiah.  As  such  it  may  be  accepted  as  an 
additional  source  for  the  history  of  this  dark  period,  and  in  turn  find 
its  most  reasonable  interpretation  in  the  light  of  the  history  of  this 
period. 

II.  Psalms. — The  historic  background  in  the  Psalms  is  far  less 
clear  and  definite  than  in  the  prophetic  writings.  The  elements  of 
uncertainty  we  have  found  in  the  passages  of  Isaiah  are  greatly 
intensified  here.  Of  the  Psalms  claimed  for  our  period  there  are 
chiefly  four:  44,  74,  79,  and  83.  Besides  these,  also  89,  94,  and  132 
were  thought  of  but  scarcely  with  sufficient  reason  to  merit  their  con- 
sideration here.  The  four  Psalms  first  mentioned  have,  besides  many 
others,  long  been  claimed  for  the  Maccabaean  period.  From  the 
days  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia^  different  Psalms  were  assigned  to 
that  late  period.  Without  entering  into  a  discussion  of  that  long 
and  much  disputed  problem  it  may  be  asserted  that  the  prevailing 
consensus  of  opinion  concerning  the  four  Psalms  named  has  been, 
and  is  today,  that  they  are  Maccabaean.  Among  later  critics  who 
adhere  to  this  view,  for  some  or  all  of  them,  may  be  mentioned  Delitzsch, 
74  and  79,  Giesebrecht,3  Konig,  74,  Reuss,  Smend,  Driver,'*  with  some 
hesitancy,  particularly  for  83,  Schurcr,^  Wildeboer,^  Baethgcn,' 
Duhm,*  Marti,  74"  Cornill,'°  Kittel,''  and  others. 

The  chief  argument  advanced  in  favor  of  the  Maccabaean  time 
is  the  historic  situation,  for  which  fuller  sources  are  at  hand  than  for 
most  of  the  postexilic  time.  The  desolation  of  Jerusalem,  Psa.  83, 
the  burning  of  the  temple,  74:3-7,  and  of  the  synagogues,  74:8,  the 

>  Ant.  xiii.  9.1.  7  Die  Ps.  ilbersetzt  u.  erkldrt,  ad  he. 

'  Ca.  350-429.  8  Die  Ps.  erkldrt,  ad  loc. 

3  Z.  A.  T.  W.,  1881,  276-332.  9  Das  Buck  Jes.  218,  400. 

4  Introd.  387  f.  »o  Op.  cit.  252  f. 

5  Op.  cit.  III.  148-50.  "  Art.  "Psalmen"  Realenc,  Bd.  16,  209. 

6  Op.  cit.  399  f. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   SOURCES  77 

religious  persecution,  44:18,  19,  23,  the  shedding  of  blood,  79:2,  3, 
the  captivity  of  many  Jews,  79:11,  their  feeling  of  rejection  from 
Jahwe,  74: 1,  their  being  mocked  and  derided,  79: 10,  12,  13,  are  said 
to  be  calamities  experienced  only  when  Jerusalem  was  captured  by 
Nebuchadrezzar,  586,  and  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabaean  rule. 
The  general  tone  of  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  is  also  claimed  to  point 
to  this  period.  The  similarity  of  II  Mace.  8:2-4  with  Psa.  74  and  79, 
and  of  I  Mace.  5:2  with  Ps.  83:4-6,  are  cited  as  proof.  It  must 
be  admitted  that  the  Psalms  mentioned  do  fit  into  the  historic  situa- 
tion of  the  Maccabaean  time  as  known  in  history.  Perhaps  if  we 
knew  what  we  do  not  know  of  other  periods,  the  same  Psalms  could 
be  claimed  for  other  periods  with  equal  definiteness.  Even  this 
period  whose  history  is  known  is  not  without  difficulties. 

W.  R.  Smith'  called  attention  to  the  difficulties  of  dating  Psa. 
44,  74,  79,  and  probably  also  83,  later  than  the  Persian  period,  and 
sought  the  occasion  for  them  in  the  history  of  Ochus.  This  view 
had  earlier  been  advanced  by  Ewald.^  The  reason  for  placing 
the  Psalms  here  was  found  in  the  external  history  of  the  time  of 
Ochus  (vide  supra).  The  view  of  W.  R.  Smith  has  much  in  its 
favor.  Already  the  position  of  these  Psalms  in  the  collection  is 
difficult  for  a  later  period.  The  canon  of  the  Elohistic  Psalter, 
42-83,  was  likely  closed  about  the  year  300,  so  that  it  is  difficult  to 
think  of  any  later  insertions  of  Psalms  into  the  collection.  And  if 
inserted  by  a  Maccabaean  redactor,  we  must  suppose  that  he  entered 
thoroughly  into  the  spirit  of  the  Elohistic  collector,^  which  again  is 
difficult  and  improbable.  Yet  our  knowledge  of  the  formation  of 
the  collections  is  too  indefinite  to  enable  us  to  speak  with  anything  of 
absolute  certainty.-* 

Ben  Sira^  36:1-17  presupposes  exactly  the  same  conditions  as 
Psa.  74  and  79.  Yet  there  is  no  cogent  reason  advanced  for  claiming 
this  part  of  Ben  Sira  as  a  later  addition.  More  than  this,  Psa. 
79:2-3  is  quoted  in  I  Mace.  7:17  as  scripture,  Kara  tov  \6<yov  ov 
eypaylre  vs.  16.     If  I  Mace,  dates  from  about  the  year  100  b.  c.  and 

I  Art.  "Psalms"  in  E.  B.<>  XX.  31;  O.  T.  J.  C.^  207-8,  437-40. 

'  Dichier  des  Alten  Bundes,  1835,  353;  Hist.  0}  Isr.  V.  120,  n. 

3  Cheyne  Introd.  100.  4  Schiirer  op.  cit.  148;  Driver  op.  cit.  387-8. 

5  Generally  dated  at  ca.  180. 


78  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

Psa.  79  from  about  the  year  165,  then  the  writer  of  I  Mace,  would 
scarcely  quote  so  recent  a  writing  and  call  it  ov  eypa^fre,  since  he 
could  easily  have  a  personal  recollection  of  the  event.  All  this  is  not 
indeed  decisive  but  is  confirming  evidence  for  the  more  probable 
earher  date.  That  there  was  no  rehgious  persecution  in  the  days 
of  Ochus,  as  Schiirer  and  Cornill  claim,  corresponding  to  Psa.  44: 18, 
19,  23,  is  hardly  consistent  with  what  is  known  of  Ochus  in  his 
devastation  of  Egypt  and  Palestine  (vide  supra).  That  there  was 
no  more  a  prophet  in  the  land,  Psa.  74:8-9,  was  true  long  before  the 
days  of  Ochus,  for  the  later  writing-prophets  were  not  considered 
as  prophets  in  their  own  time.  blSS'^'iy'l^  in  Psa.  74:8  is  a  very 
improbable  phrase  for  the  synagogues,  and  should  perhaps  read 
b^^lifl'^  Dip  the  name  of  Israeli  Cheyne,  who  in  his  Origin  of  the 
Psalter,  1891,  still  held  to  the  Maccabaean  origin  of  Psa.  74  and  79, 
and  considered  Psa.  89  as  probably  also  belonging  in  the  same  time, 
was  the  first  to  accept  W.  R.  Smith's  argument  as  historically  prob- 
able.^ In  his  Introduction  to  the  Book  of  Isaiah  160  f.  he  compares 
these  Psalms  with  Isa.  63 : 7 — 64: 12  and  finds  many  points  in  common. 
The  language  used  of  the  mistreatment  of  the  Jews,  of  the  profaning 
of  their  temple,  of  the  ruin  of  their  city,  and  of  the  desolation  of  their 
land  is  indeed  more  intense  in  the  Psalms  than  in  Trito-Isaiah.  And 
this  is  just  what  one  would  expect  in  subjective  poetic  hterature  where 
the  feelings  are  first  considered  and  historic  facts  are  secondary 
matters. 

The  conclusion  of  W.  R.  Smith  was  also  accepted  by  G.  Beer^ 
and  by  K.  Budde-*  in  his  review  of  Cheyne's  Introduction  to  the  Book 
of  Isaiah  where  he  says:  Es  ist  hohe  Zeit  mit  der  Meinung  auf- 
zuraumen,  dass  die  Psalmen,  die  von  tiefstem  nationalem  Ungluck 
reden,  der  Makkabaerzeit  angehorten."  Guthe^  thinks  it  probable 
yet  not  certain  that  Psa.  44,  74,  79,  and  also  89,  belong  in  the  late 
Persian  period.  It  is  unfortunate  that  Cheyne  now  seeks  to  explain 
all  these  Psalms,  as  also  the  passages  in  Isaiah  which  he  earlier 
claimed  for  the  late  Persian  period,  by  his  JerahmeeHte  theory.^ 

I  Cheyne  E.  B.  III.  3,949  and  n.  i. 

a  New  World,  September  1891,  Review  of  J.  C.  O.  T.';  Founders,  1892,  220-23. 

3  Individual  u.  Gemeinde psalmen,  1894,  LIV-LVI. 

4  Th.  L.  Z.,  1886,  287.  s  Gesch.  des  Volhes  Isr.  291. 

6  Art.  "Psalms"  in  E.  B.  Ill,  §28;  Art.  "Prophetic  Literature,"  §43- 


OLD   TESTAMENT   SOURCES  79 

It  may  indeed  not  be  possible  to  determine  with  absolute  certainty 
where  these  Psalms  had  their  origin  and  into  what  historic  back- 
ground they  best  fit.  As  in  many  other  instances  in  the  postexilic 
history  of  the  Jews,  and  concerning  the  literature  of  that  period,  we 
may  have  to  be  content  to  remain  in  uncertainty.  If  at  all  possible 
the  solution  seems  to  me  to  lie  in  the  direction  of  a  better  acquaintance 
with  the  apocalyptic  literature.  All  that  can  be  asserted  with  any 
confidence  is  that  the  prevailing  evidence  points  to  this  period  and 
that  the  Psalms  probably  belong  here  and  reflect  the  experiences 
of  the  Jewish  community  at  this  time.  With  due  allowance  for  the 
poetic  way  of  expression  the  contents  do  not  vary  greatly  from  those 
of  Trito-Isaiah.  If  the  Psalms  are  accepted  for  the  reign  of  Ochus 
we  have  valuable  additions  to  the  fist  of  sources,  and,  as  well,  an 
enlarged  and  clearer  conception  of  the  historic  conditions  of  the  time. 

III.  Passages  from  the  Minor  Prophets. — Among  the  different 
portions  of  the  Minor  Prophets  which  were  thought  to  have  originated 
from  the  late  Persian  period  the  following  may  be  mentioned: 
(i)  Joel,  chap.  3  [4];  (2)  Obad.  vss.  1-15;  (3)  Hab.  1:2 — 2:4,  in 
part;  and  (4)  Zech.,  chap.  14.  In  no  case  were  any  definite  de- 
cisive arguments  advanced,  perhaps  because  this  was  impossible, 
perhaps  also  because  the  historic  background  is  not  yet  definitely 
enough  defined  and  the  historical  data  in  the  passages  not  yet  suffi- 
ciently understood,  (i)  Joel,  chap.  3  [4],  is  assigned  to  this  period 
by  C.  F.  Kent'  shortly  before  the  deportation  of  Jews  to  Hyrcania 
in  353.  Others  agree  that  not  only  chap.  3  but  chaps,  i  and  2,  as 
well,  fall  into  the  second  half  of  the  Persian  period  but  not  so  far 
down.  The  year  400  or  soon  after  is  thought  to  be  more  nearly 
correct  by  Wildeboer,^  Nowack,  Marti,  and  Cornill.  (2)  Obad., 
vss.  1-15,  was  at  one  time  assigned  to  the  time  of  the  deportation  to 
Hyrcania  by  Cheyne,^  who  now  Hmits  their  date  between  586  and 
312,  wdthout  any  definite  period  within  that  time.  Nowack  agrees 
with  this  conclusion.  Marti  places  the  section  at  about  500,  Wilde- 
boer  after  586,  and  Winckler  between  this  date  and  164.  No  definite 
claims  for  the  reign  of  Ochus  can  be  made.  For  (3),  Hab.  1:2 — 
2:4,  in  part,  no  definite  claim  was  made  for  this  period;  and  (4), 

I  A  Hist,  of  the  Jewish  People  236  f. 

^  Op.  cit.  345  f.  3  Art.  "Obadiah"  in  E.  B.  III.  3,661. 


So  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND  HIS  REIGN 

Zech,,  chap.  14,  undoubtedly  falls  with  chaps.  12  and  13  into  a  later 
period. 

Hence  the  Minor  Prophets  yield  us  no  definite  additional  historic 
information  for  the  reign  of  Ochus.  The  possibihty,  however, 
remains  for  such  portions  yet  to  be  determined. 

IV.  Parts  of  the  Book  of  Job. — Perhaps  no  book  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment has  been  assigned  to  so  wide  a  range  of  time  as  the  book  of 
Job,  through  every  period  from  Abraham  down  to  the  second  century 

B.  c,  yet  with  an  increasing  tendency  toward  a  late  date.  Naturally 
then  someone  would  find  a  place  for  it  in  the  late  Persian  period. 
Cheyne'  advanced  the  thought  that  the  original  Job  story  was  a 
poetic  version  of  a  perfectly  righteous  man,  a  second  Abraham  or 
Noah.  Isa.  52 :  13 — 53 :  12  was  modeled  after  this.  During  the  close 
of  the  Persian  or  the  beginning  of  the  Greek  period  this  treatment 
of  the  problem  of  righteous  suffering,  as  presented  by  the  original 
narrator  of  Job,  was  found  inadequate  for  practical  uses.  Hence  it 
was  adapted  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  new  age.  But  this  was  not  yet 
the  present  form  of  the  book  which  comes  from  a  date  still  later. 

C.  F.  Kent^  follows  this  view  in  the  main.  He  considers  the  prin- 
cipal sections  of  the  book,  chaps.  3-31  and  38:1 — 42:6,  based  on  an 
old  Job  story,  to  have  been  written  at  this  time. 

The  book  of  Job  in  its  present  form  very  probably  comes  from  a 
late  date,  at  all  events  from  a  postexilic  period.  The  historic  data 
in  the  book  are  too  few  to  allow  any  definite  assignment  of  an  exact 
date.  Whatever  the  date  of  the  book,  the  gain  from  it  for  the  history 
of  any  period  is  rather  for  the  inner  religious  development,  and  only 
indirectly  for  the  external  history. 

V.  The  Apocryphal  Books.— (i)  The  Book  of  Judith.  Ewald^ 
already  observed  that  the  story  of  the  book  of  Judith  has  its  back- 
ground in  the  history  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Ochus.  He  also 
assigned  the  writing  of  the  book  to  that  age.  The  conclusion  that 
the  book  was  written  as  early  as  the  fourth  century  has  long  since 
been  shown  to  be  impossible.  It  must  at  all  events  be  later  than  the 
Maccabaean  period  and  may  come  from  a  century  or  more  later. 
W.  R.  Smith,-*  following  Gutschmied  and  Noldeke,  thinks  it "  probable 

•  Jewish  Rel.  Life  ajter  the  Exile  158-72.  3  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel. 

'  Op.  cit.  236  f.  4  Op.  cit.  439. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   SOURCES  8l 

that  the  wars  under  Ochus  form  the  historic  background  of  the  book 
of  Judith  and  that  the  name  Holophernes  is  taken  from  that  of  a 
general  of  Ochus  who  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  Egyptian  cam- 
paign." Schiirer'  thinks  this  probable  and  Holscher^  considers  it 
established  beyond  a  doubt.  He  sees  in  Holophernes  and  Bagoas 
historic  personages  whereas  Judith  is  Judaism  personified.  Mar- 
quart,3  Winckler'*  and  Willrichs  find  the  solution  here  as  in  so  many 
other  instances  in  a  change  of  names.  Holophernes  is  not  Holo- 
phernes but  for  one  it  is  Aristazanes,  for  the  other  Assurbanipal, 
and  for  the  third  Odoarras,  with  nothing  but  confusing  results. 

The  most  satisfactory  view  seems  to  me  that  the  book,  though 
written  late,  has  its  background  in  the  history  of  the  reign  of  Ochus. 
Then  we  have  not  indeed  additional  history  of  that  period  but  con- 
firming evidence  that  the  history  as  constructed  is  correct. 

(2)  The  Book  of  Tobit,  which  Ewald''  thought  probably  to  date 
from  this  period,  has  been  satisfactorily  shown  to  come  from  nearly 
two  centuries  later,  and  consequently  needs  no  further  consideration 
here. 

D.      SUMMARY   RESULT 

The  summary  will  evidently  be  a  bringing  together  of  that  which 
has  already  been  given  in  the  separate  investigations.  As  certainly 
dating  from  the  reign  of  Ochus  are  Isa.  23:1-14  and  Isa.  19:1-15. 
Trito-Isaiah  very  probably  also  comes  from  the  same  time.  Not 
certain,  yet  probable,  are  Psa.  44,  74,  79,  and  83  as  subjective 
presentations  of  the  same  historic  situation  as  that  which  Trito- 
Isaiah  gives  us.  The  Book  of  Judith  does  not  come  from  this  time 
but  has  its  background  in  the  history  of  the  reign  of  Ochus  and  re- 
flects confirming  hght  upon  it.  In  Isa.  14:28-32  there  are  probably 
also  to  be  found  reflections  of  the  campaigns  of  Ochus  in  Palestine, 
though  the  passage  does  not  date  from  that  reign.  Of  the  remaining 
passages  considered  none  yield  sufficiently  clear  evidence  to  justify 
their  acceptance  for  sources  of  the  history  of  the  reign  of  Ochus, 

I  Op.  cit.  III.  170  and  n.  19.  2  Op.  cit.  35. 

3  Philologus  liv,  1895,  507-10. 

4  Altorientalische  Forschungen  II,  1899,  266-76. 

5  Juden  und  Griechen  vor  der  Makkabdischen  Erhebung,  1895,  88-90. 

6  Op.  cit. 


82  ARTAXERXES   III   OCHUS   AND   HIS   REIGN 

although  in  the  case  of  some  it  is  equally  impossible  to  say  that 
they  do  not  date  from  this  period. 

Isa.  23:1-14  corroborates  the  histor)'  of  the  campaign  of  Ochus 
against  Sidon,  and  Isa.  19:1-15  the  impending  campaign  against 
Eg\'pt,  as  we  have  found  them  recorded  in  extra-biblical  histor}'. 
Isa.,  chaps.  56-66,  shows  us  the  relation  between  Jews  and  Samaritans 
during  the  close  of  the  Persian  period,  their  long-continued  hatred, 
and  their  final  separation  resulting  from  the  building  of  the  temple 
on  Mount  Gerizim  soon  after  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Ochus.  Not 
only  have  we  in  Trito-Isaiah  confirming  e\idence  of  the  history  of 
the  reign  of  Ochus  as  we  found  it  elsewhere,  but  it  gives  us  a  clearer 
picture  of  what  the  Jews  suffered  at  the  hands  of  Ochus.  This 
suffering  is  presented  more  intensely  in  the  Psalms  probably  dating 
from  this  time.  The  presentation  is  more  intense  because  it  is 
subjectively  contemplated.  A  later  reflection  of  the  same  history 
appears  in   the  Book  of  Judith. 

Every  portion  of  the  Old  Testament  finds  its  true  and  larger  mean- 
ing when  it  is  interpreted  in  the  hght  of  its  true  history.  To  find 
this  larger  meaning,  and  to  interpret  it  to  others,  is  the  supreme  arm 
of  the  student  of  the  Old  Testament.  That  many  of  the  passages 
treated  in  this  discussion  have  been  meaningless  until  they  were 
interpreted  historically,  every  Old  Testament  student  will  admit. 
If  in  any  way  the  writer  has  succeeded  in  bringing  to  light  a  larger 
meaning,  or  at  least  has  directed  the  attention  of  others,  as  he  has 
for  himself,  to  the  beauty  and  deeper  significance  of  the  historic 
truth  and  tlie  religious  message  contained  in  some  of  these  passages, 
then  his  purpose  is  accomphshed. 


APPENDIX 

CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES 

A.      CHRONOLOGY   OF  THE   REIGN   OF  OCHUS 

B.  C. 

358    Nectanebus  II,  King  of  Egypt,  361-343. 

Philip  II,  King  of  Macedon,  359-336. 

Death  of  Artaxerxes  II,  Mnemon,  King  of  Persia,  404-358. 

Accession  of  Artaxerxes  III,  Ochus,  to  the  throne  of  Persia,  358-338. 

Death  of  Agesilaus,  King  of  Sparta,  398-358. 
357     First  war  between  Philip  and  Athens,  357-346. 

War  of  the  separate  League  of  Rhodes,  Chios,  and  Byzantium  against 
Athens,  357-355. 
356     Ochus  commands  the  coast  satraps  to  dismiss  their  mercenary  troops. 

Revolt  of  Artabazus,  and  Orontes  who  fortifies  Pergamon. 
355     Outbreak  of  the  Phocian  war,  355-346. 

Ochus  makes  preparations  for  the  campaign  in  the  west. 

Orontes  subdued  by  Autophradates. 
354    Artabazus  seeks  help  from  the  Thebans. 
353     Conflict  of  the  Persians  with  revolting  Jews.     Jericho  conquered. 

Second  campaign  of  Ochus  against  Egypt,  under  the  command  of  his 
generals. 

Pammenes  sent  by  Thebes  to  assist  Artabazus. 

Athens  supports  the  revolting  Egyptians. 

Orontes  subdued  by  Ochus. 

Demosthenes'  speech,  "  De  Rhodiorum  Libertate." 

Independence  of  the  Rhodians. 
352     League  between  Orontes  and  Athens. 

Disagreement   between   Artabazus   and    Pammenes.     Artabazus   flees   to 
Macedon. 

Peace  between   Ochus  and  Orontes.     Orontes  made  satrap  of  western 
Asia  Minor. 
351     Ochus  makes  preparations  against  Egypt. 

Revolt  in  Sidon  and  entire  Phoenicia  against  Persia. 

Revolt  in  Cyprus.    Euagoras  II,  of  Salamis,  banished.     Pnytagoras  made 
king  in  his  stead. 

League  between  Phoenicia  and  Egypt. 

Idrieus  satrap  of  Karia,  351-344. 

Mizaeus  of  Celicia  and  Belesys  of  Syria  sent  by  Ochus  to  suppress  the 
revolt  in  Cyprus.     Repulsed. 
350    Phocion  and  Euagoras  II  land  in  Egypt  and  blockade  Salami. 
349     Ochus  seeks  aid  from  the  cities  of  Greece.     Athens  and  Sparta  neutral. 
Thebes  and  Argos  send  aid. 

83 


84 


ARTAXERXES   III  OCHUS  AND   HIS  REIGN 


349 
348 


346 
345 

344 

343 


340 
339 

338 


336 


Pnytagoras  recognized  by  the  Persians  as  king  of  Salarais. 

Ochus  in  Syria.     Sidon  destroyed.     Phoenicia  conquered.     Euagoras  II 

satrap  in  Sidon. 
The  Jews  oppressed  by  Bagoas. 

First  attempt  by  Ochus  in  his  third  campaign  against  Egypt,  346-343. 
Peace  between  Athens  and  Philip  II. 

Second  attempt  of  Ochus  against  Egypt.     Nectanebus  II  flees  to  Memphis. 
Mentor  appointed  by  Ochus  over  the  satrapies  of  western  Asia  Minor. 
League  between  Philip  and  Ochus. 
Conquest  of  Egypt.     Nectanebus  II  flees  to  Ethiopia. 
Pharendates  appointed  satrap  of  Egypt. 
Ochus  returns  to  Persia. 

Ochus  refused  to  enter  into  a  league  with  Athens  against  Philip. 
Nectanebus  II  dies. 

Persian  troops  in  Thrace  fighting  against  Macedon. 
Battle  of  Chaeronea. 
Peace  between  Philip  and  Athens. 

Philip  commander-in-chief  over  Hellenic  troops  against  Persia. 
Death  of  Ochus.     Succeeded  by  Arses,  338-335. 
Death  of  Philip  II.    Succeeded  by  Alexander  the  Great. 

— Compiled 


B.      CHRONOLOGY   OF  THE   PERSIAN   EMPIRE 


B.  C. 

Cyrus 55^^529 

Cambyses 529-522 

Gaumata 

Darius  I,  Hystaspis  .  .  521-485 

Xerxes  I 485-464 

Artaxerxes  I,  Longimanus   .  464-424 

Xerxes  II 424-423 

Sogdianus 

Darius  II 423-404 

Artaxerxes  II,  Mnemon        .  404-358 


Artaxerxes  III,  Ochus    . 

Arses 

Darius  III,  Codomannus 
Alexander  the  Great 
The  divided  Empire 
The  Parthian  Empire 

242  B.  C.-224  A.  D 


B.  c. 

358-338 
338-335 
335-331 
33^-323 
323-242 


The  Sasanian  Empire 
Modem  Persia 


A.  D. 

224-652 
652- 


-After  NoLDEKE 


Persian  Province 
Amyrtaios 
Nepherites  I 
Akoris 
Psammut  . 
Muthes 
Nepherites  II 


CHRONOLOGY   OF   EGYPT 

B.  C. 

525-408  Nectanebus  I 

408-402  Tachos      .... 

402-396  Nectanebus  II 

396-383  Artaxerxes  III,  Ochus 

383-382  Arses    .... 

382-381  Darius  III,  Codomannus 

381  Alexander  the  Great 


B.  c. 

381-363 
363-361 
361-343 
343-338 
338-33S 
335-331 
33^-3^3 


APPENDIX 


85 


D.      CHRONOLOGY  OF   THE   SELEUCIDAE.      CAPITAL   AT   ANTIOCH 


Seleucus  I,  Nicator   . 
Antiochus  I,  Soter     . 
Antiochus  II,  Theos 
Seleucus  II,  Callinicus    . 
Seleucus  III,  Ceraunus  or 

Antiochus  III,  The  Great 
Seleucus  IV,  Philopater 
Antiochus  IV,  Epiphanes 
Antiochus  V,  Eupator     . 
Demetrius  I,  Soter    . 
Alexander  I,  Balas    . 
Demetrius  II,  Nicator    . 


B.  c. 

.     312-280 

281-261 

261-246 

246-226 

Soter 

226-223 
222-187 

187-175 
175-164 
164-162 
162-150 
153-145 
145-139 
—After  W, 


B.  C. 
145-142 

139-129 

138-129 

129-125 


Antiochus  VI,  Dionysus 
Demetrius  in  Parthia 
Antiochus  VII,  Sidetes   . 
Demetrius  II,  Nicator    . 
Alexander  II  and  Seleucus  V 
Antiochus  VIII,  Grj'pus  125-96 

Antiochus  IX,  Cyzicenus     .       116-95 
Seleucus  \T,  Epiphanes  Nicator   96-95 

Antiochus  X 94-83 

Philippus  I  and  Demetrius  III 
Antiochus  XIII,  Asiaticus    .      .  69-65 
Syria  a  Roman  Province      .      .  63- 

J.  WooDHOUSE  in  E.  B.  IV.  4,347  f. 


E.      CHRONOLOGY   OF  THE   PTOLEMIES 


Ptolemy  I,  Lagi   . 
Ptolemy  II,  Philadelphus 
Ptolemy  III,  Euergetes  . 
Ptolemy  IV,  Philopator 
Ptolemy  V,  Epiphanes    . 
Ptolemy  VI,  Philometor 


B.  C. 
•         323-285 

B.  C. 

Ptolemy  VII,  Physkon    .           170-164 

.         285-246 

....     145-117 

246-222 

Ptolemy  Lathurus                      117-107 

222-205 

Ptolemy  Alexander    .      .           107-  89 

.         205-181 

Ptolemy  Lathurus  (second  time) 

•         181-I45 

89-  81 

— After  GuTHE,  Gesch.  des  Volkes  Isr.  311. 


^iVt 


^^^y 


